Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page1 of 35

1 Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716)

Daniel M. Hutchinson (SBN 239458)

2 Barbra L. Williams (SBN 249967)

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &

3 BERNSTEIN, LLP

Embarcadero Center West

James M. Finberg (SBN 114850)

4 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor

Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709)

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

Jamie L. Crook (SBN 245757)

5 Telephone: (415) 956-1000

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

177 Post Street, Suite 300

6

San Francisco, CA 94108

Todd M. Schneider (SBN 158253)

Telephone: (415) 421-7151

7 Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151)

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

Nancy Park (SBN 236750)

8 Naomi Sunshine (SBN 244094)

Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452)

SCHNEIDER & WALLACE

Vincent Cheng (SBN 230827)

9 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000

Lindsay Nako (SBN 239090)

San Francisco, CA 94104

Nina Wasow (SBN 242047)

10 Telephone: (415) 421-7100

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER &

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105

JACKSON, P.C.

11

1330 Broadway, Suite 1800

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

Oakland, CA 94612

12

Telephone: (510) 839-6824

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO / OAKLAND DIVISION

15 JASMEN HOLLOWAY, AMY GARCIA,
16 CHERYL CHAPPEL, ERIC BLACKSHER, JESSICA TREAS,
17 LAWRENCE SANTIAGO, JR., MUEMBO MUANZA, MAURICE
18 CALHOUN, and NICHOLAS DIXON, on behalf of themselves and all others
19 similarly situated,

20

Plaintiffs,

Case No. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES, FOR VIOLATIONS OF
(1) 42 U.S.c. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), (2) 42 U.S.c. § 1981, and (3) Cal. Gov't Code § 12940. et seq.

21

v.

22 BEST BUY CO., INC. and BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,
23 Defendants.
24

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

25

26

27

28

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page2 of 35

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Defendants Best Buy Company, Inc. and Best Buy Stores, L.P. (hereinafter

3 identified as "Best Buy" or "the Company") are national retail electronics sellers that provide

4 modern, high-technology products to their customers. Best Buy's treatment of women and

5 minority employees and job applicants, however, remains outdated and obsolete. Best Buy

6 discriminates against African Americans by refusing to hire them for entry-level positions, and

7 when it does hire them, discriminates against its African-American employees with respect to job

8 assignments, promotions/transfers, and exempt compensation. Best Buy similarly discriminates

9 against its Latino employees with respect to job assignments and promotions/transfers. Best Buy

10 also discriminates against its female employees with respect to job assignments, promotions/

11 transfers, and exempt compensation.

12

2. Best Buy operates through a corporate culture of racial and gender

13 stereotypes. For example, a corporate policy known as "Segmentation" requires Best Buy

14 managers and salespeople to target one of four composite customer types, all white, most of

15 whom are young and male with Anglo-sounding names: "Barry," a male with a six-figure

16 income who purchases what he wants regardless of cost; "Ray," a male who likes electronic

17 gadgets but may not always be able to afford what he wants; or "Buzz," a young male interested

18 in gaming and playstations who makes small purchases. The only female customer to whom Best

19 Buy marketed only confirms gender stereotypes: "Jill" is "Barry's" wife-a stay-at-home soccer

20 mom. Thus, the Company's website discusses segmentation in terms of appealing to "affluent

21 professional males" and "upscale suburban moms." It was only after the filing of the

22 administrative charges of discrimination and this lawsuit that Best Buy augmented the customer

23 types to add more women to its "customer centricity" model.

24

3. The corporate culture of racial and gender stereotypes permeates Best Buy

25 and its predominately white male management force, who operate under the adage that "Girls

26 can't sell." Women are accordingly steered into cashier jobs, and away from the more lucrative

27 sales positions from which promotions to management are made. Similarly, those African

28 Americans who are hired, and Latinos, (together, "minorities") are steered away from sales

- 1-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page3 of 35

1 positions and into behind-the-scenes "inventory control" (warehouse) positions or lower-paid

2 cashier jobs. Even when women and minorities are allowed on the sales floor, they are not

3 permitted to work in major sales departments selling big-ticket items such as televisions, stereos,

4 computers, or the high-end Magnolia home theater line, but are segregated in relatively minor

5 sales departments, such as media (compact discs), digital imaging (cameras), and wireless (cell

6 phones).

7

4.

Best Buy enforces a nationwide corporate policy of preferring white male

8 employees for high-level employment and for desirable job assignments-including major sales,

9 senior, supervisor, and managerial positions-in its stores throughout the United States. Best

10 Buy reserves the most desirable job assignments and positions-and the sales experience

11 necessary to achieve them and advance in the Company-for white male employees. Best Buy's

12 predominantly white male sales employees are better paid and receive greater opportunities for

13 advancement than Best Buy's female and minority employees, who overwhelmingly are

14 segregated in the lowest paying positions with the least chance of advancement.

15

5. The low numbers of African Americans employed by Best Buy and the low

16 number of African-American, Latino, and female employees in sales, supervisory, and

17 management positions set it apart from other large retailers. Like many large retailers, Best Buy

18 has low educational and experience requirements and promotes many managers and other high-

19 level employees from within the Company. One might expect Best Buy to have a workforce

20 similar to other large retailers that employ large numbers of women and minorities in supervisory

21 and managerial roles. Instead, Best Buy's supervisors and managers are overwhelmingly white

22 and male. More than 75% of Best Buy general managers (the individuals who operate and

23 manage each Best Buy store) are white men. Fewer than 10% of general managers are women

24 and fewer than 20% are minorities. Even when women or Mrican Americans are permitted to be

25 managers, Best Buy pays them less than white male managers.

26

6. This class action is accordingly brought on behalf of all past, present, and

27 future African-American applicants for non-exempt store-level positions who passed the pre-

28 hiring test but have been or may be denied entry-level positions at Best Buy retail stores

-2-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page4 of 35

1 throughout the United States; all past, present, and future store-level African-American

2 employees who have been or may be subjected to Best Buy's challenged job assignment,

3 promotion/transfer, and exempt compensation policies or practices in Best Buy retail stores

4 throughout the United States; all past, present, and future store-level female employees who have

5 been or may be subjected to Best Buy's challenged job assignment, promotion/transfer, and

6 exempt compensation policies or practices in Best Buy retail stores throughout the United States;

7 all past, present, and future store-level Latino employees who have been or may be subjected to

8 Best Buy's challenged job assignment and promotion/transfer policies or practices in Best Buy

9 stores throughout the United States.

10

7. Best Buy has maintained and continues to maintain a pervasive policy or

11 practice of discrimination based on gender, race, color, and/or national origin in denying

12 employment, desirable job assignments, promotions/transfers, and equal exempt compensation to

13 African Americans; denying desirable job assignments, promotions/transfers, and equal exempt

14 compensation to women; and denying desirable job assignments and promotions/transfers to

15 Latino employees in Best Buy stores throughout the United States. This class action seeks an end

16 to these discriminatory policies and practices, an award of backpay and front pay, punitive

17 damages, and injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for all class members.

18

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

19

8. Plaintiffs' federal claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

20 1964,42 US.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; and 42 US.C. § 1981. This Court has jurisdiction over this

21 action pursuant to 28 US.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction

22 pursuant to 28 US.C. § 1367 over claims under the California Fair Employment & Rousing Act

23 ("FERA"), Government Code § 12940 et seq. ("California Claims").

24

9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 US.C. § 1391(b). The

25 named Plaintiffs all resided in California at the time the first amended complaint was filed, and

26 most reside in this District. Members of the Plaintiff Class reside in California and throughout

27 the United States. Defendant Best Buy is licensed to do business in California. It has retail stores 28 throughout California and this District. Indeed, over 10% of Best Buy stores are located in

-3-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page5 of 35

1 California. Many of the acts complained of occurred in this State and this District and gave rise

2 to the claims alleged.

3

10. Intradistrict assignment is proper in the San Francisco/Oakland Division

4 because a substantial part of the events and omissions that give rise to the claims of Plaintiffs

5 Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, and Nicholas Dixon occurred in Marin

6 County, and a substantial part of the events and omissions that give rise to the claims of Plaintiff

7 Jessica Treas occurred in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

8

PARTIES

9

11. Plaintiff Jasmen Holloway is a minority female. At the time Plaintiffs filed

10 the original Class Action Complaint, she was a resident of Vallejo, California. She was denied

11 promotions/transfers and received unequal job assignments at the Best Buy store in Marin City,

12 California, from January 2001 until her termination in September 2005, on account of her gender,

13 race, color, and/or national origin.

14

12. Plaintiff Amy Garcia is a female resident of Chico, California. She was

15 denied promotions/transfers and received unequal job assignments at the Best Buy store in Chico,

16 California, from August 2001 until her termination in October 2006, on account of her gender.

17

13. Plaintiff Cheryl Chappel is a female and minority resident of Chula Vista,

18 California. She has been paid less, been denied promotions/transfers, and received unequal job

19 assignments at the Best Buy stores in Chico, California, from July 2001 until September 2004 and

20 in Mira Mesa, California, from September 2004 until the present, on account of her gender, race,

21 color, and/or national origin.

22

14. Plaintiff Eric Blacksher is a minority resident of Canyon Country,

23 California. He was denied employment at the Best Buy store in Santa Clarita, California, in or

24 around November 2005, on account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

25

15. Plaintiff Jessica Treas is a female and minority resident of Richmond,

26 California. She was paid less, denied promotions/transfers, and received unequal job assignments

27 at the Best Buy stores in Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Union City, and Emeryville, California, from July

28

-4-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page6 of 35

1 1999 until her termination in February 2006, on account of her gender, race, color, and/or national

2 ongm.

3

16. Plaintiff Lawrence Santiago, Jr., is a minority. At the time Plaintiffs filed

4 the First Amended Class Action Complaint, he was a resident of San Jose, California. He was

5 denied promotions/transfers and received unequal job assignments at the Best Buy Blossom Hill

6 Store in San Jose and other Best Buy stores in Modesto and Sacramento, California, from July

7 2003 until his termination in May 2006, on account of his race, color, and/or national origin.

8

17. Plaintiff Muembo Muanza is a minority resident of Hercules, California.

9 He was denied promotions/transfers and received unequal job assignments at the Best Buy store

10 in Marin City, California, from September 2004 until his resignation in June 2006, on account of

11 his race, color, and/or national origin.

12

18. Plaintiff Maurice Calhoun is a minority resident of Oakland, California.

13 He was denied promotions/transfers and received unequal job assignments at the Best Buy store

14 in Marin City, California, from October 2003 until May 2007, on account of his race, color and/or

15 national origin.

16

19. Plaintiff Nicholas Dixon is a minority resident of Oakland, California. He

17 was denied promotions/transfers and received unequal job assignments at the Best Buy store in

18 Marin City, California, from October 2003 until February 2005, on account of his race, color,

19 and/or national origin.

20

20. Defendant Best Buy Company, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation that owns

21 and operates retail stores in California and throughout the United States.

22

21. Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. is a Virginia corporation that owns and

23 operates retail stores in California and throughout the United States.

24

22. Best Buy is one of the country's largest retail electronics sellers and

25 specializes in consumer electronics, home office supplies, entertainment software, appliances, and

26 related services. As of February 2006, Best Buy operated 742 retail stores in the United States,

27 and employed approximately 128,000 people. According to the Company, it took in $30,848

28

-5-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page7 of 35

1 billion in revenue during fiscal year 2006. Best Buy now operates well over 800 retail stores in

2 the United States.

3

BEST BUY'S GENERAL PRACTICE OR POLICY OF DISCRIMINATION

4

23. The denials and abridgments of employment opportunities suffered by the

5 Representative Plaintiffs are part of a general policy or practice of discrimination on the basis of

6 gender, race, color, and/or national origin in employment that has existed at Best Buy throughout

7 the relevant time period. These are not isolated examples of employment practices or individual

8 decisions. On the contrary, these incidents are representative of Best Buy's systematic

9 discrimination against women and minorities and in favor of white males.

10

24. Throughout its over 800 stores in the United States, Best Buy engages in an

11 intentional policy or practice of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, color, and/or national

12 origin with regard to: (1) hiring of qualified African-American applicants into entry-level

13 positions; (2) job assignments and promotions/transfers for female and minority employees; and

14 (3) exempt compensation paid to those few female and African-American employees permitted to

15 be managers. "Entry-level" refers to jobs previously or currently defined at Best Buy as grade 2

16 or grade 3 positions and any similar jobs in the future. "Promotion/transfer" refers to (a)

17 advancement in grade with a change in job; (b) moves from occasional/seasonal to permanent

18 positions (for African Americans only); and (c) moves from part-time to full-time (for African

19 Americans only).

20

25. Additionally, Best Buy's standard employment policies or practices have a

21 disparate impact on qualified African-American applicants with respect to hiring into entry-level

22 positions; on female and minority employees with respect to job assignments and promotions/

23 transfers; and on female and African-American employees with respect to exempt compensation,

24 without any corresponding business necessity for such policies and practices.

25

26. Best Buy has pursued policies or practices on a continuing basis that have

26 denied or restricted entry-level job opportunities to qualified African-American applicants and

27 have denied or restricted job opportunities to all female and minority retail store employees.

28

-6-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page8 of 35

1

27. Best Buy stores follow the same human resources policies or practices,

2 participate in the same discrimination, and are run by the same senior management.

3

28. At each store, Best Buy maintains the same hierarchy ofjob positions.

4 This hierarchy includes the following classifications: (1) occasional/seasonal employees,

5 (2) permanent employees, (3) part-time employees, (4) full-time employees, (5) senior

6 employees, (6) supervisors, (7) area managers, (8) assistant managers, (9) sales managers, and

7 (10) general managers. The proportion of minority and women employees is greatest at the base

8 of the hierarchy and diminishes as one moves up.

9

29. Within this hierarchy, Best Buy maintains three groupings of employees:

10 (1) operations employees (i.e., cashiers and customer service representatives) at the bottom;

11 (2) product process employees (i.e., warehouse employees with responsibilities for inventory, loss

12 prevention, and merchandising); and (3) sales employees at the top.

13

30. Sales is the elite position for Best Buy employees. Best Buy

14 disproportionately assigns white men to sales positions and disproportionately assigns women

15 and minorities to non-sales positions. On the rare occasions when Best Buy does assign female or

16 minority employees to sales positions, it is frequently to minor sales departments like media or

17 wireless.

18

31. Best Buy views major electronics sales as the engine that drives the

19 company. A major sales position at Best Buy is the gateway to high pay and promotion to

20 management. Employees who sell "big-ticket" items such as televisions and computers, or who

21 work in the high-end Magnolia home theater "store within a store" receive higher pay and get

22 placed on the fast track to promotion. When Best Buy promotes current employees to senior,

23 supervisor, and manager positions, it overwhelmingly does so from the major sales ranks.

24

32. Best Buy hires and maintains a disproportionately white male sales force

25 from which it then promotes a disproportionately white male management force.

26

33. Best Buy systematically refuses to hire qualified African-American

27 applicants who pass Best Buy's pre-hiring tests into entry-level positions. When African

28 Americans who do not conform to the young, white, male culture at Best Buy inquire about

-7-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page9 of 35

1 employment, senior managers sometimes tell them to fill out online applications even though they

2 have no intention of considering them for employment. When African-American applicants

3 submit applications, senior managers often never review their applications. Even when African-

4 American applicants who pass Best Buy's pre-hiring tests are called in for interviews, senior

5 managers often refuse to hire them upon learning that they are African-American.

6

34. When Best Buy does "hire" African Americans, it places them into

7 temporary positions for the busy holiday season, and does not transfer/promote them to

8 permanent positions once the holidays are over. Even when Best Buy does allow African-

9 American temporary workers to become permanent, the Company keeps them as part-time rather

10 than promoting/transferring them to full-time positions.

11

35. Best Buy generally does not permit its female and minority employees to

12 work on the sales floor. Instead, it segregates them in operations, stock room, cashier, and minor

13 sales positions, denying them assignment to major sales positions, including the Magnolia home

14 theater "store within a store."

15

36. Best Buy provides fewer opportunities for promotions/transfers and

16 training to female and minority employees in stock room, cashier, operations, and minor sales

17 positions than to its predominantly white male workforce in major sales positions.

18

37. Best Buy systematically pays employees in major sales positions more than

19 female and minority employees in stock room, cashier, operations, and minor sales positions.

20

38. Best Buy implements its discriminatory employment policies or practices

21 in part through an overly discretionary hiring, job assignment, promotion/transfer, and exempt

22 compensation review process. Best Buy fails to publish explicit guidelines and qualifications for

23 senior managers attempting to hire and promote/transfer employees, and instead allows senior

24 managers to rely on subjective, arbitrary, standardless, and unvalidated criteria in making

25 employment decisions, which focus on whether employees reflect senior managers' perceptions

26 of what Best Buy employees should be rather than whether they would perform their jobs

27 responsibly and effectively.

28

- 8-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page10 of 35

1

39. Best Buy's corporate culture of race and gender stereotypes encourages

2 senior managers to rely upon such stereotypes in making employment decisions.

3

40. Because Best Buy senior managers are overwhelmingly white male, they

4 tend to hire, assign to sales positions, and transfer/promote those like themselves-that is, more

5 white males.

6

41. Best Buy generally does not advertise job openings to the public. When

7 individuals are interviewed for job openings, they often are not informed of specific jobs, but are

8 assigned to positions that senior managers subjectively believe would be a good "fit," based on

9 gender and racial stereotyping and unconscious bias.

10

42. Best Buy furthers its discriminatory employment policies or practices by

11 systematically utilizing its predominantly white male work force to recruit managers and major

12 sales employees, which leads to hiring disparities for Africans Americans and to unequal job

13 assignments and denials of transfers/promotions for women and minorities. Current employees

14 receive pay bonuses if Best Buy hires someone whom they refer. The predominantly white male

15 employees at Best Buy overwhelmingly refer applicants who are white and/or male. When

16 minority and female employees refer minority and female applicants to Best Buy senior

17 managers, these minority and female applicants do not receive the same consideration as white

18 male applicants, particularly for sales jobs.

19

43. Although Best Buy purportedly requires senior managers to post senior,

20 supervisor, and managerial job openings on its internal Job Opening System ("JOS"), Best Buy

21 systematically fails to post all job openings on JOS. This tap-on-the-shoulder practice prevents

22 qualified female and minority employees from learning of and applying for promotions/transfers.

23 When Best Buy senior managers do post job openings, they usually do not consider female and

24 minority applicants because they already have a person in mind to fill the position. When

25 considering applicants for transfer/promotion, senior managers' subjective determinations are

26 tainted by gender and racial stereotyping and unconscious bias.

27

44. Best Buy also implements its discriminatory exempt pay policies or

28 practices in part through subjective, arbitrary, and standardless exempt pay determinations.

-9-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page11 of 35

1

45. When employees complain of discrimination through Best Buy's internal

2 complaint system, which is supposed to be anonymous, Best Buy fails to maintain the

3 confidentiality of their complaints or properly to investigate their complaints. Instead, senior

4 managers are permitted to retaliate against employees who complain of discrimination.

5

CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS

6 Jasmen Holloway

7

46. Plaintiff Jasmen Holloway is an African-American female. Ms. Holloway

8 worked as a part-time cashier, or customer service representative ("CSR") I; part-time sales

9 representative in wireless; full-time sales representative in home theater, car audio, and wireless;

10 senior in media, car audio, and wireless; and full-time CSR II at the Best Buy store in Marin City,

11 California, from January 2001 until September 2005.

12

47. As it does with most women, Best Buy originally assigned Ms. Holloway

13 to a cashier position, rather than to a sales position.

14

48. Managers did not provide Ms. Holloway with the same training as white

15 male employees. For example, managers did not coach Ms. Holloway by providing advice,

16 support, or areas for improvement as required by the Best Buy customer service evaluations that

17 managers conduct.

18

49. When Ms. Holloway was eventually transferred to the sales floor, she was

19 often assigned to minor sales departments such as wireless, media, and car audio.

20

50. During her employment at Best Buy, Ms. Holloway repeatedly expressed

21 to Best Buy managers her interest in promotions/transfers but was denied promotion/transfer

22 opportunities offered to similarly situated white male employees.

23

51. For example, in or around February 2005, after Ms. Holloway complained

24 to her general manager about the lack of coaching, Ms. Holloway was informed by her manager

25 that she could apply for a senior position in the wireless department that would be opening up

26 soon. She repeatedly inquired about the position and was told it was not yet available. She also

27 checked JOS, but the position was not listed on JOS. Finally, Ms. Holloway learned that the

28

- 10 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page12 of 35

1 position, which had never been posted, and for which she had not been given an opportunity to

2 interview, had been given to a white male.

3

52. In or around August 2005, Ms. Holloway applied for a promotion from

4 full-time CSR II to operations senior. Instead, the position was given to a white male with less

5 experience than she.

6

53. Ms. Holloway also sought and was denied promotions/transfers to car

7 audio supervisor, appliance sales representative, and administrative corporate positions in or

8 around September 2004, April 2005, and August 2005, respectively.

9

54. In addition to denying her favorable job assignments and

10 promotion/transfer opportunities, Best Buy paid Ms. Holloway less than male employees in

11 comparable positions.

12

55. On or around March 2005, Ms. Holloway requested a pay increase. Best

13 Buy informed Ms. Holloway that she could not receive a pay increase because she had reached

14 the maximum salary cap for her position and refused to grant her a raise. Ms. Holloway

15 subsequently learned that white male Best Buy employees with less experience and fewer

16 qualifications were not being subjected to the same salary cap and were being paid more than she.

17

56. In or around April 2005, Ms. Holloway formally complained to Best Buy's

18 Department of Human Resources. Ms. Holloway complained again about race and gender

19 discrimination in or around June 2005. One week after Ms. Holloway's second complaint, her

20 car audio sales position was "eliminated," only to be reinstated and reassigned to a white male

21 shortly thereafter. Although Ms. Holloway was assigned to a different position (off the sales

22 floor), approximately two months later she was terminated from that position for a pretextual

23 reason. Best Buy's decision in August 2005 (before her termination) to deny her request for a

24 promotion to operations senior was based in part on her complaints; she was informed that the

25 white male who was promoted or transferred instead of her was a "cheerleader" (i.e., someone

26 who did not complain).

27

28

- 11 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page13 of 35

1

57. Best Buy has discriminated against Ms. Holloway on the basis of her sex,

2 race, color, and/or national origin by, inter alia, denying her promotion/transfer opportunities and

3 giving her unequal job assignments because she is neither white nor male.

4

58. On or about December 2,2005, Ms. Holloway filed a charge of

5 discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which was

6 cross-filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH"). On or

7 about December 5,2005, the EEOC issued Ms. Holloway a notice of right to sue. On or about

8 December 5,2005, the DFEH issued Ms. Holloway a notice of right to sue. Attached to this

9 Complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of

10 right to sue.

11 Amy Garcia

12

59.

Plaintiff Amy Garcia is female. From August 2001 until October 2006, she

13 worked as a CSR II, media sales representative, media senior, merchandising senior, media

14 supervisor, merchandising specialist, and inventory SWAT specialist at the Best Buy store in

15 Chico, California.

16

60. Ms. Garcia was regularly assigned to positions off the sales floor, despite

17 her interest in working in sales. When she was assigned to a sales position, it was in media, a

18 minor sales department.

19

61. During her employment at Best Buy, Ms. Garcia repeatedly expressed her

20 interest in a promotion/transfer to Best Buy managers but was denied promotion/transfer

21 opportunities offered to similarly situated male employees. For example, in or around January

22 2005, Ms. Garcia was denied a promotion to product process manager. In early January 2005,

23 Ms. Garcia informed her general manager that she wanted to apply for the vacant position of

24 product process manager. The general manager confirmed that the position was available but

25 advised Ms. Garcia that Best Buy was not posting the position and had already decided whom to

26 promote. He further indicated that Best Buy would not consider Ms. Garcia's application for

27 promotion because of her status as a single mother. Best Buy subsequently promoted a male

28 employee with less experience than Ms. Garcia to the product process manager position. When

- 12 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page14 of 35

1 the same position opened up again several months later, Ms. Garcia was told that another white

2 male who fit the "Buzz" profile had already been selected for the position before she had an

3 opportunity to apply.

4

62. Between October 2004 and September 2005, Best Buy promoted

5 approximately ten male employees to manager positions at the Chico store. Best Buy never

6 posted any of these positions as vacant on JOS and did not accept formal applications for these

7 vacancies. Although her managers repeatedly told Ms. Garcia that she was qualified for

8 promotion to manager, Ms. Garcia was denied the opportunity to apply for any of these positions.

9

63. In addition to denying her promotion/transfer opportunities, Best Buy paid

10 Ms. Garcia less than male employees in comparable positions. In or around April 2004, Best Buy

11 denied Ms. Garcia a salary increase. Ms. Garcia's manager advised her that Best Buy would not

12 increase her pay because she had reached the maximum salary cap for her position. Ms. Garcia

13 subsequently learned that the salaries of similarly situated male employees exceeded the alleged

14 salary cap represented to her and that male employees in comparable positions were receiving

15 higher pay. Upon information and belief, Ms. Garcia continued to receive a lower salary than

16 male employees in comparable positions.

17

64. In or around November 2004, and again in January 2005, Ms. Garcia

18 complained to Best Buy's Department of Human Resources and to store management about the

19 discriminatory treatment to which she was subjected. After receiving her complaints, Best Buy

20 retaliated and further discriminated against Ms. Garcia by removing her job functions, granting

21 her fewer hours, scheduling her for hours that conflicted with her child care responsibilities,

22 downgrading her performance evaluations, and terminating her.

23

65. Best Buy has discriminated against Ms. Garcia on the basis of her sex by,

24 inter alia, denying her promotion/transfer opportunities and giving her unequal job assignments

25 because she is not male.

26

66. On or about October 6, 2005, Ms. Garcia filed a charge of discrimination

27 with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Ms. Garcia received a Notice of Right to

28 Sue from the EEOC on or about December 7,2005. On or about October 19,2005, the DFEH

- 13 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page15 of 35

1 issued Ms. Garcia a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit Band 2 incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

3 Cheryl Chappel

4

67. Plaintiff Cheryl Chappel is an African-American female. From July 2001

5 to the present Ms. Chappel has worked at the Best Buy stores in Chico and Mira Mesa,

6 California. She was employed as an administrative senior and customer service senior at the

7 Chico store. She became an operations senior at the Mira Mesa store in October 2004. After the

8 filing of this lawsuit, Ms. Chappel was promoted to operations supervisor and then operations

9 manager at the Mira Mesa Best Buy store in October 2006 and December 2007, respectively.

10

68. Ms. Chappel repeatedly expressed an interest in promotions to supervisor

11 and manager positions to her superiors.

12

69. In April 2003, Ms. Chappel applied for a promotion to operations

13 supervisor at the Chico store. Although Ms. Chappel had two years' experience in the operations

14 department and received excellent performance reviews, Best Buy did not promote her to the

15 supervisor position and instead promoted a part-time male employee who had worked at the store

16 for only four months and had never worked in operations prior to receiving the promotion. A

17 Best Buy manager told Ms. Chappel that she was not promoted to supervisor because it was "a

18 man thing." She was also told by a Best Buy manager that she would not be promoted because

19 she had a husband who could support her. Later, Ms. Chappel was told by a Best Buy manager

20 that Best Buy employed few women on the sales floor because "girls can't sell."

21

70. In September 2004, Ms. Chappel learned that a supervisor position was

22 available at the Best Buy store in Mira Mesa and applied for the position. Despite her stated

23 interest in applying for supervisor, Mira Mesa management suggested to Ms. Chappel during the

24 interview process that she consider non-supervisor positions in customer service. Ms. Chappel

25 replied that she was not interested in customer service positions since they were lower in seniority

26 than her current administrative senior position at the Chico store, and reiterated her interest in

27 becoming a supervisor. Best Buy subsequently selected a male employee who had less

28 experience than Ms. Chappel for the supervisor position and assigned Ms. Chappel to operations

- 14 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page16 of 35

1 semor. After more than five years of employment at Best Buy, Ms. Chappel was finally

2 promoted to operations supervisor in October 2006 and to operations manager on or about

3 December 31,2007.

4

71. In addition to denying Ms. Chappel favorable job assignments and

5 promotion and transfer opportunities, Best Buy has also denied Ms. Chappel pay and

6 compensation offered to similarly situated white and male employees. During her tenure at both

7 the Chico and Mira Mesa Best Buy stores, Ms. Chappel has received lower pay than white and

8 male employees in comparable positions. In her present position as an operations manager, Ms.

9 Chappel is paid less than similarly situated white male managers. Ms. Chappel has observed that

10 other female employees are paid less than males in comparable positions.

11

72. Best Buy has discriminated against Ms. Chappel on the basis of her sex,

12 race, color, and/or national origin by, inter alia, paying her less than white male managers,

13 denying her promotion/transfer opportunities, and giving her unequal job assignments because

14 she is not a white male.

15

73. On or about April 1, 2005, Ms. Chappel filed a charge of discrimination

16 with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Ms. Chappel received a Notice of Right

17 to Sue from the EEOC on or about December 7,2005. On or about April 25, 2005, the DFEH

18 issued Ms. Chappel a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C-l and

19 incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

20

74. On or about October 24,2008, Ms. Chappel filed a charge of

21 discrimination with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Ms. Chappel received a

22 Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about December 24,2008. On or about December

23 17,2008, the DFEH issued Ms. Chappel a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as

24 Exhibit C-2 and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

25 Eric Blacksher

26

75.

Plaintiff Eric Blacksher is an African-American male. He applied to work

27 at the Best Buy store in Santa Clarita, California, in November 2005, and later returned for three

28 in-person interviews. Mr. Blacksher was qualified for the job, in part based on his prior retail

- 15 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page17 of 35

1 sales experience at Finish Line and Sears. Best Buy refused to hire Mr. Blacksher, despite

2 knowing of his qualifications, based on his race, color and/or national origin.

3

76. Mr. Blacksher took and passed Best Buy's pre-hiring test. Within a few

4 hours after he submitted his on-line application, Mr. Blacksher was invited to interview with Best

5 Buy. About two days later, Mr. Blacksher attended an in-person interview where the manager

6 conducting the interview could see that Mr. Blacksher was African American. Best Buy had Mr.

7 Blacksher attend two additional interviews. Although Best Buy indicated during each interview

8 that it had job openings, no store employee has since contacted Mr. Blacksher regarding his

9 application nor explained why Best Buy refused to offer Mr. Blacksher a job.

10

77. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Blacksher on the basis of his race,

11 color, and/or national origin by denying him employment because he is not white.

12

78. On or about April 11, 2006, Mr. Blacksher filed a charge of discrimination

13 with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Blacksher received a Notice of Right

14 to Sue from the EEOC on or about October 4,2006. On or about April 22, 2006, the DFEH

15 issued Mr. Blacksher a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D and

16 incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

17 Jessica Treas

18

79. Plaintiff Jessica Treas is a Latina female of Mexican origin. She worked at

19 Best Buy stores in Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Union City, and Emeryville as a CSR II, operations team

20 leader, customer service supervisor, operations manager, media supervisor, and administrative

21 senior from July 1999 through February 2006.

22

80. Despite her prior management experience and stated desire to work in

23 sales, Best Buy initially assigned Ms. Treas to a CSR II position off the sales floor.

24

81. Best Buy managers refused to cross-train Ms. Treas in sales and

25 discouraged her from transferring to the sales floor.

26

82. After approximately two years of being passed over for promotions/

27 transfers to higher-level positions and/or sales, Best Buy finally promoted Ms. Treas to operations

28

- 16 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page18 of 35

1 manager at the Pleasant Hill store. She then transferred, at Best Buy's request, to serve as

2 operations manager at the Pinole, Union City, and then Emeryville stores.

3

83. Throughout her employment with Best Buy, the Company treated Ms.

4 Treas less favorably than white male employees. Best Buy disciplined Ms. Treas more frequently

5 and for less serious offenses than white male employees even though Ms. Treas performed as

6 well or better than employees in other areas of the Emeryville store, as measured by Best Buy's

7 national department rankings. Best Buy successively demoted Ms. Treas from manager to

8 supervisor and then from supervisor to senior. On each occasion, Best Buy replaced Ms. Treas

9 with a white male employee.

10

84. Throughout her employment at Best Buy, and even after she was demoted

11 from her manager position, Ms. Treas repeatedly expressed her interest in a promotion/transfer to

12 Best Buy managers but was denied promotion/transfer opportunities offered to similarly situated

13 white male employees. For example, although white males who replaced Ms. Treas following her

14 demotions did not achieve higher sales numbers or perform better than Ms. Treas, each white

15 male who succeeded Ms. Treas received transfers/promotions to the sales floor and/or to segment

16 manager positions. Ms. Treas applied and interviewed for several job openings that Best Buy

17 instead gave to white males with lesser or comparable qualifications.

18

85. In addition to denying Ms. Treas promotion/transfer opportunities, Best

19 Buy also denied Ms. Treas pay and compensation offered to similarly situated white male

20 employees. During her tenure at Best Buy stores, including her tenure as a manager, Ms. Treas

21 received lower pay than white male employees in comparable positions. Ms. Treas observed that

22 other female and minority employees were paid less than whites and males in comparable

23 positions.

24

86. Best Buy retaliated against Ms. Treas for her complaints regarding Best

25 Buy's discriminatory treatment. Ms. Treas complained to Best Buy's Department of Human

26 Resources about the discriminatory treatment to which she was subjected. After receiving her

27 complaints, Best Buy retaliated and further discriminated against Ms. Treas by, inter alia,

28 subjecting her to retaliatory write-ups, demoting, and terminating her.

- 17 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page19 of 35

1

87. Best Buy has discriminated against Ms. Treas on the basis of her sex, race,

2 color, and/or national origin by, inter alia, paying her less than white male managers, denying her

3 promotion/transfer opportunities, and giving her unequal job assignments because she is not a

4 white male.

5

88. On or about September 15, 2006, Ms. Treas filed a charge of

6 discrimination with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Ms. Treas received a

7 Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about November 2,2006. On or about September

8 26, 2006, the DFEH issued Ms. Treas a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as

9 Exhibit E and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

10 Lawrence Santiago, Jr.

11

89. Plaintiff Lawrence Santiago, Jr., is an Asian American and Latino of

12 Japanese and Puerto Rican descent. He worked at Best Buy's Blossom Hill store in San Jose,

13 California, as a CSR II, appliance supervisor, appliance sales representative, and Appliance

14 Customer Expert ("ACE") professional from July 2003 until May 2006.

15

90. Mr. Santiago applied to Best Buy in July 2003 with extensive supervisory

16 and managerial experience. Despite his prior experience and stated desire to work as a

17 supervisor, Best Buy initially assigned Mr. Santiago to a CSR II position off the sales floor.

18

91. During his employment at Best Buy, Mr. Santiago repeatedly expressed his

19 interest in a promotion to a higher-level position and/or transfer to sales to Best Buy managers but

20 was denied promotion and transfer opportunities offered to similarly situated white employees.

21

92. For example, Best Buy denied five applications for promotions/transfers

22 that Mr. Santiago submitted in 2003 without even granting him a single interview. Mr. Santiago

23 applied for ten positions from late 2004 through 2006. Best Buy did not grant Mr. Santiago a

24 promotion or transfer to any of these positions.

25

93. In addition to denying Mr. Santiago promotion and transfer opportunities,

26 Best Buy also denied Mr. Santiago pay and compensation offered to similarly situated white

27 employees. During his tenure at Best Buy stores, Mr. Santiago received lower pay and fewer

28 scheduled hours than white employees in comparable positions.

- 18 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page20 of 35

1

94. Best Buy did not provide Mr. Santiago with the same training opportunities

2 as white employees. For example, although it was common practice to train each person starting

3 a supervisor position, Best Buy managers denied Mr. Santiago's requests for training when he

4 worked as an appliance supervisor in early 2004. After about six months in this position without

5 receiving the necessary training, Mr. Santiago was forced to step down because he did not have

6 the necessary support to succeed in this position.

7

95. Best Buy treated Mr. Santiago less favorably than white employees in other

8 ways as well. Mr. Santiago's managers and co-workers constantly used racially and sexually

9 derogatory language. On one occasion, the Best Buy operations manager told Mr. Santiago that

10 "it looks like you're getting a little fat. It must be because you're Hawaiian." Another time, this

11 manager referred to Mr. Santiago as a "mutt." Mr. Santiago also witnessed other Asian-

12 American, African-American, Latino, and female employees receive similar treatment.

13

96. Best Buy retaliated against Mr. Santiago for his complaints regarding Best

14 Buy's discriminatory treatment. For example, Mr. Santiago complained to Best Buy's

15 Department of Human Resources to report discriminatory conduct, including, inter alia, his

16 demotion, pay cut, and lack of training. Although Best Buy maintains that complaints to its Open

17 Line are confidential, a manager shortly thereafter stated to Mr. Santiago, "so I heard you called

18 Open Line." After receiving his complaints, a Best Buy general manager referred to Mr. Santiago

19 as a "cry baby" and retaliated and further discriminated against Mr. Santiago by, inter alia,

20 subjecting him to repeated discriminatory treatment and terminating him.

21

97. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Santiago on the basis of his race,

22 color, and/or national origin by, inter alia, denying him promotion/transfer opportunities and

23 giving him unequal job assignments because he is not white.

24

98. On or about September 5,2006, Mr. Santiago filed a charge of

25 discrimination with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Santiago received a

26 Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about November 2,2006. On or about September 8,

27 2006, the DFEH issued Mr. Santiago a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as

28 Exhibit F and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

- 19 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page21 of 35

1 Muembo Muanza

2

99. Plaintiff Muembo Muanza, an African-American male, worked as a part-

3 time warehouse employee in Best Buy's Marin City store from September 2004 through June

4 2006.

5

100. Mr. Muanza applied to Best Buy in 2004 with two years of electronic sales

6 experience from his tenure at The Good Guys and general sales experience at Home Depot. A

7 Best Buy manager told Mr. Muanza that Best Buy had no sales openings and that, as a "big guy,"

8 Mr. Muanza would be good for the warehouse. Best Buy placed Mr. Muanza in a product

9 process position in the warehouse. Nearly all his co-workers in the warehouse were minorities.

10

101. Mr. Muanza's only job assignments throughout his tenure at Best Buy were

11 to part-time positions in merchandising and inventory.

12

102. Mr. Muanza earned less working in the warehouse than he would have

13 earned in a sales and/or full-time position. Additionally, Mr. Muanza received less pay than

14 white Best Buy employees in inventory with identical job titles.

15

103. Despite Mr. Muanza's repeated requests for a promotion/transfer to a full-

16 time position and/or a position on the sales floor, Best Buy never gave him a full-time position or

17 a position on the sales floor in the almost two years that he worked at Best Buy.

18

104. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Muanza on the basis of his race,

19 color, and/or national origin by, inter alia, denying him promotions/transfers and giving him

20 unequal job assignments because he is not white.

21

105. On or about December 2,2005, Mr. Muanza filed a charge of

22 discrimination with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Muanza received a

23 Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about October 2,2006. On or about December 2,

24 2005, the DFEH issued Mr. Muanza a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as

25 Exhibit G and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

26

27

28

- 20-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page22 of 35

1 Maurice Calhoun

2

106. Plaintiff Maurice Calhoun is an African-American male who was

3 employed at the Best Buy store in Marin City, California, from October 2003 to May 2007 as an

4 inventory specialist and sales representative in digital imaging and car audio.

5

107. Mr. Calhoun applied to Best Buy on or around September 2003 with three

6 years of sales experience, including electronics sales. Mr. Calhoun expressed an interest in sales

7 during his initial interview. Despite Mr. Calhoun's interest and experience in sales, Best Buy

8 assigned Mr. Calhoun to an inventory position in the back of the store, paid him less, and

9 assigned him fewer hours than similarly situated employees with comparable or less experience.

10

108. Furthermore, although Best Buy informed Mr. Calhoun that his position

11 was permanent at the time he was hired, Best Buy instead classified him as an

12 occasional/seasonal worker and paid him less than permanent employees. Best Buy managers

13 informed him that he deserved the highest pay raise possible, but then Best Buy refused to grant

14 Mr. Calhoun a higher pay raise because Best Buy had wrongly classified him as an

15 occasional/seasonal employee.

16

109. Mr. Calhoun repeatedly expressed his interest in obtaining a vacant sales

17 and/or full-time position but was always told that part-time inventory was the only position

18 available and that Best Buy had no openings for promotion/transfer to sales or to other full-time 19 positions. But while Mr. Calhoun remained stuck in inventory, he witnessed dozens of white

20 employees fill vacancies in Best Buy's sales department.

21

110. After volunteering for a special project team, Mr. Calhoun was finally

22 assigned to a part-time position in Best Buy's digital imaging department, a minor sales

23 department where he sold cameras. Even though his location changed, his pay remained stuck.

24 Best Buy did not conduct Mr. Calhoun's evaluations in a timely fashion and delayed his yearly

25 evaluation for six months, during which time he continued to be assigned to work fewer hours

26 than white employees with fewer or comparable qualifications.

27 28

- 21 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page23 of 35

1

Ill. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Calhoun on the basis of his race,

2 color, and/or national origin by, inter alia, denying him promotion/transfer opportunities and

3 giving him unequal job assignments because he is not white.

4

112. On or about December 7,2005, Mr. Calhoun filed a charge of

5 discrimination with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Calhoun received a

6 Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on or about October 2,2006. On or about December 8,

7 2005, the DFEH issued Mr. Calhoun a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as

8 Exhibit H and incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

9 Nicholas Dixon

10

113. Plaintiff Nicholas Dixon, an African-American male, worked as a CSR I at

11 Best Buy's Marin City store from October 2003 until February 2005 and as a part-time computer

12 sales representative at Best Buy's Summerlin store in Las Vegas, Nevada, from February until

13 June 2005.

14

114. Best Buy initially assigned Mr. Dixon to a part-time position off the sales

15 floor, even though he had prior experience in cell phone sales for WorldCom. Although Best Buy

16 informed Mr. Dixon that his position was permanent, Best Buy instead classified him as

17 occasional/seasonal, which meant that he was paid less than permanent employees.

18

115. Best Buy continued to give Mr. Dixon unfavorable job assignments off the

19 sales floor until February 2005, when he finally obtained a part-time position in home office

20 sales.

21

116. Throughout his employment at Best Buy, Mr. Dixon received less pay than

22 white employees with fewer or comparable qualifications. Mr. Dixon received positive

23 evaluations from Best Buy and was awarded store MVP by his supervisors and managers, but

24 Best Buy did not conduct Mr. Dixon's evaluations in a timely fashion even though it promptly

25 conducted evaluations for white employees in the same job classification. After Mr. Dixon

26 finally received his evaluations, he continued to receive less pay than white employees. For

27 example, in March 2004, Best Buy granted Mr. Dixon a pay raise of only $0.21 per hour because

28

- 22-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page24 of 35

1 Best Buy had wrongly classified him as an occasional/seasonal employee instead of a permanent

2 employee. 3

117. Mr. Dixon tried on numerous occasions to secure a transfer/promotion to a

4 sales and/or full-time position where he could receive higher compensation. For example, Mr.

5 Dixon sought transfers or promotions to both the digital imaging and wireless specialist positions 6 in early 2004.

7

118. Even as a cashier, Mr. Dixon demonstrated his sales acumen by selling

8 additional items to customers. Although Best Buy would not transfer Mr. Dixon to a sales floor

9 position, Best Buy asked Mr. Dixon to train new employees how to sell. Despite Mr. Dixon's 10 sales experience, interest in sales, and sales results in a non-sales position, Best Buy refused to

11 transfer/promote him to a sales floor position where he would have received approximately $2

12 per hour more than he received as a cashier.

13

119. Best Buy has discriminated against Mr. Dixon on the basis of his race,

14 color, and/or national origin by, inter alia, denying him promotion/transfer opportunities and

15 giving him unequal job assignments because he is not white.

16

120. On or about November 1, 2005, Mr. Dixon filed a charge of discrimination

17 with the EEOC, which was cross-filed with the DFEH. Mr. Dixon received a Notice of Right to

18 Sue from the EEOC on or about October 2,2006. On or about November 10, 2005, the DFEH

19 issued Mr. Dixon a notice of right to sue. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit I and 20 incorporated by reference are copies of the charge and notices of right to sue.

21

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

22

121. Plaintiffs bring this Class Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

23 Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class of all past, present, and future African24 American applicants for non-exempt positions who passed the pre-hiring test but have been or

25 may be denied entry-level positions at Best Buy retail stores throughout the United States from

26 December 8, 2003 through the date ofjudgment; all past, present, and future store-level African27 American employees who have been or may be subjected to Best Buy's challenged job

28 assignment, promotion/transfer, and exempt compensation policies or practices in Best Buy retail

- 23 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page25 of 35

1 stores throughout the United States from December 8, 2001 through the date ofjudgment; all

2 past, present, and future store-level Latino employees who have been or may be subjected to Best

3 Buy's challenged job assignment and promotion/transfer policies or practices in Best Buy retail

4 stores throughout the United States from December 8, 2001 through the date ofjudgment; and all

5 past, present, and future store-level female employees who have been or may be subjected to Best

6 Buy's challenged job assignment, promotion/transfer, and exempt compensation policies or

7 practices in Best Buy retail stores throughout the United States from June 5, 2004 through the

8 date ofjudgment. This Class excludes Best Buy general managers (for the time period during

9 which Best Buy employed them as general managers); persons who occupied Geek Squad

10 positions (for the time period during which they occupied those positions); persons who applied

11 for a Geek Squad position (for the decisions Best Buy made regarding those applications);

12 employees of Magnolia stand-alone stores (for the time period during which Magnolia employed

13 them); and persons who applied for a position at a Magnolia stand-alone store (for the decisions

14 Magnolia made regarding those applications).

15

122. Plaintiffs also bring this Class Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

16 Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalfofa Class of all past, present, and future African-

17 American applicants for non-exempt positions who passed the pre-hiring test but have been or

18 may be denied entry-level positions at Best Buy retail stores throughout California from

19 November 1, 2004 through the date ofjudgment; all past, present, and future store-level African-

20 American employees who have been or may be subjected to Best Buy's challenged job

21 assignment, promotion/transfer, and exempt compensation policies or practices in Best Buy retail

22 stores throughout California from November 1, 2004 through the date ofjudgment; all past,

23 present, and future store-level Latino employees who have been or may be subjected to Best

24 Buy's challenged job assignment and promotion/transfer policies or practices throughout

25 California from November 1, 2004 through the date ofjudgment; and all past, present, and future

26 store-level female employees who have been or may be subjected to Best Buy's challenged job

27 assignment, promotion/transfer, and exempt compensation policies or practices in Best Buy retail

28 stores throughout California from April 1, 2004 through the date ofjudgment. This Class

- 24-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page26 of 35

1 excludes Best Buy general managers (for the time period during which Best Buy employed them

2 as general managers); persons who occupied Geek Squad positions (for the time period during

3 which they occupied those positions); persons who applied for a Geek Squad position (for the

4 decisions Best Buy made regarding those applications); employees of Magnolia stand-alone

5 stores (for the time period during which Magnolia employed them); and persons who applied for

6 a position at a Magnolia stand-alone store (for the decisions Magnolia made regarding those

7 applications).

8

123. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definitions of the Class and

9 subclass based on discovery or legal development.

10

124. Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent.

11

125. The members of the Class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of

12 all members is impracticable. The number of class members is currently indeterminate, but is

13 certainly larger than can be addressed through joinder. In fiscal year 2006, Best Buy had

14 approximately 128,000 employees working in approximately 742 stores. In addition, temporary

15 employees are hired during peak periods, such as the holiday season, and are often denied

16 transfers/promotions to permanent positions on account of race, color, and/or national origin.

17 Thus, although the precise number of female and minority employees subjected to Best Buy's

18 discriminatory employment practices is not presently known, it is certainly a larger number than

19 can feasibly be addressed through joinder. Additionally, each of Best Buy's now approximately

20 800 stores annually receives numerous applications from qualified potential African-American

21 employees. Thus, although the precise number of qualified, African-American applicants who

22 are not hired into entry-level positions or are otherwise discriminated against is currently

23 unknown, it is far greater than can be feasibly addressed through joinder.

24

126. There are questions oflaw and fact common to the Class, and these

25 questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common

26 questions include, among others: (1) whether Best Buy's policies or practices discriminate

27 against qualified African-American applicants with respect to entry-level employment and against

28 minority and female employees; (2) whether Best Buy's use of subjective selection criteria as an

- 25 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page27 of 35

1 employment policy or practice discriminates against qualified African-American applicants with

2 respect to entry-level hiring and against minority and female employees; (3) whether Best Buy's

3 policies or practices violate Title VII, including whether Best Buy engages in a systemwide

4 pattern or practice of employment discrimination against females and minorities; (4) whether Best

5 Buy's policies or practices violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and (5) whether punitive damages,

6 injunctive relief, and other equitable remedies for the Class are warranted.

7

127. The representative Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Class.

8

128. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and

9 protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and

10 experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and the intersection

11 thereof.

12

129. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

13 Procedure 23(b)(2) because Best Buy has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally

14 applicable to the Class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to

15 Plaintiffs and the Class as a whole. The class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Best

16 Buy's common, uniform, and unfair personnel policies or practices that discriminate on the basis

17 of race, color, national origin, and/or gender.

18

130. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

19 Procedure 23 (b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions

20 affecting only individual members of the Class, and because a class action is superior to other

21 available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members

22 have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Best Buy's common, uniform, and

23 unfair discriminatory personnel policies or practices. Best Buy has computerized payroll and

24 personnel data that will make calculation of damages for specific class members relatively

25 simple. The propriety and amount of punitive damages are issues common to the Class.

26

27

28

- 26-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page28 of 35

1

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Race, Color, and/or National Origin Discrimination)

2

(42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq.)

3 (Brought on behalf of Eric Blacksher, Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Cheryl Chappel, and the Class)
4

5

131. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 130 as alleged above.

6

132. This Claim is brought on behalf of representative Plaintiffs Eric Blacksher,

7 Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun,

8 Nicholas Dixon, Cheryl Chappel, and the Class they represent.

9

133. Best Buy has maintained as its standard operating procedure an

10 employment system that intentionally discriminates against or imposes disparate treatment upon

11 African Americans with respect to hiring into entry-level positions and compensation for exempt

12 managers, and intentionally discriminates against or imposes disparate treatment upon African

13 Americans and Latinos with respect to job assignments and promotions/transfers.

14

134. Best Buy's employment policies or practices, which are overly subjective,

15 discretionary, standardless, and arbitrary, have an adverse disparate impact on African-American

16 applicants with respect to entry-level employment and have an adverse disparate impact on

17 African-American and Latino employees. Best Buy's system is not and cannot be justified by

18 business necessity, but even if it could be so justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that

19 could equally serve any alleged necessity.

20

135. Best Buy's discriminatory policies or practices described above have

21 denied entry-level positions to qualified African-American applicants and equal compensation to

22 African-American exempt employees, resulting in the loss of past and future wages and other job

23 benefits. These discriminatory policies or practices have also denied African-American and

24 Latino employees favorable job assignments and promotions/transfers, resulting in the loss of past

25 and future wages and other job benefits.

26

136. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal race, color, and/or national origin

27 discrimination prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

28

137. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

- 27-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page29 of 35

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

(Race, Color, and/or National Origin Discrimination)

(42 U.S.c. § 1981)

3

(Brought on behalf of Eric Blacksher, Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, 4 Jr., Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Cheryl Chappel, and the Class)

5

138. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 130 alleged above.

6

139. This claim is brought on behalf of representative Plaintiffs Eric Blacksher,

7 Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun,

8 Nicholas Dixon, Cheryl Chappel, and the Class they represent.

9

140. Best Buy has maintained an intentionally discriminatory system with

10 respect to hiring, job assignments, promotions/transfers, and exempt compensation.

11

141. Best Buy's discriminatory policies or practices described above have

12 denied entry-level positions to qualified African-American applicants and equal compensation to

13 exempt African-American employees, resulting in the loss of past and future wages and other job

14 benefits. These discriminatory policies or practices have also denied African-American and

15 Latino employees favorable job assignments and promotions/transfers, resulting in the loss of past

16 and future wages and other job benefits.

17

142. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal intentional race, color, and/or

18 national origin discrimination with respect to the making, performance, modification, and

19 termination of contracts prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

20

143. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

21

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Race, Color, and/or National Origin Discrimination)

22

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940 et seq.)

23 (Brought on Behalf of Plaintiffs Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric

Blacksher, Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Cheryl Chappel, and

24

the California Subclass)

25

144. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 130 as alleged above.

26

145. This claim is brought on behalf of Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza,

27 Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jasmen Holloway, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr.,

28

- 28 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page30 of 35

1 Cheryl Chappel, and the California Subclass they represent of similarly situated minority

2 employees and applicants for employment in Best Buy stores in California.

3

146. Best Buy has maintained an employment system that intentionally

4 discriminates against or imposes disparate treatment upon African Americans with respect to

5 hiring into entry-level positions and compensation for exempt managers, and upon African

6 Americans and Latinos with respect to job assignments and promotions/transfers.

7

147. Best Buy's employment policies or practices, which are overly subjective,

8 discretionary, standardless, and arbitrary, have an adverse disparate impact on African-American

9 applicants with respect to entry-level employment and have an adverse disparate impact on

10 African-American and Latino employees. Best Buy's system is not and cannot be justified by

11 business necessity, but even if it could be so justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that

12 could equally serve any alleged necessity.

13

148. Best Buy's discriminatory policies or practices described above have

14 denied entry-level positions to qualified African-American applicants and equal compensation to

15 exempt African-American employees, resulting in the loss of past and future wages and other job

16 benefits. These discriminatory policies or practices have also denied African-American and

17 Latino employees favorable job assignments and promotions/transfers, resulting in the loss of past

18 and future wages and other job benefits.

19

149. Best Buy's actions as described above constitute unlawful race, color,

20 and/or national origin discrimination prohibited by FEHA, California Government Code section

21 12940 et seq.

22

150. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

23

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Gender Discrimination)

24

(42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq.)

25

(Brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia,

Cheryl Chappel, Jessica Treas, and the Class) 26

27

151. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 13 0 as alleged above.

28

- 29-

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page31 of 35

1

152. This Claim is brought on behalf of representative Plaintiffs Jasmen

2 Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, and Jessica Treas, on behalf of themselves and the Class

3 they represent.

4

153. Best Buy has maintained as its standard operating procedure an

5 employment system that intentionally discriminates against and imposes disparate treatment on

6 women with respect to job assignments, promotions/transfers, and exempt compensation.

7

154. Best Buy's standard employment policies or practices, which are overly

8 subjective, standardless, and arbitrary, have an adverse disparate impact on female employees.

9 Best Buy's system is not and cannot be justified by business necessity, but even if it could be so

10 justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that could equally serve any alleged necessity.

11

155. Best Buy's discriminatory policies or practices described above have

12 denied female employees favorable job assignments, promotions/transfers, and equal exempt

13 compensation, resulting in the loss of past and future wages and other job benefits.

14

156. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal gender discrimination prohibited

15 by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

16

157. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

17

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Gender Discrimination)

18

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940 et seq.)

19

(Brought on Behalf of Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia,

Cheryl Chappel, Jessica Treas, and the California Subclass)

20

21

158. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 130 as alleged above.

22

159. This Claim is brought on behalf of representative Plaintiffs Jasmen

23 Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, and Jessica Treas, on behalf of themselves and the

24 California Subclass they represent of similarly situated women employees in Best Buy stores in

25 California.

26

160. Best Buy has maintained as its standard operating procedure an

27 employment system that intentionally discriminates against and imposes disparate treatment on

28 women with respect to job assignments, promotions/transfers, and exempt compensation.

- 30 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page32 of 35

1

161. Best Buy's standard employment policies or practices, which are overly

2 subjective, standardless, and arbitrary, have an adverse disparate impact on female employees.

3 Best Buy's system is not and cannot be justified by business necessity, but even if it could be so

4 justified, less discriminatory alternatives exist that could equally serve any alleged necessity.

5

162. Best Buy's discriminatory policies or practices described above have

6 denied female employees favorable job assignments, promotions/transfers, and equal exempt

7 compensation, resulting in the loss of past and future wages and other job benefits.

8

163. Best Buy's actions as described above constitute unlawful gender

9 discrimination prohibited by FEHA, California Government Code section 12940 et seq.

10

164. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter provided.

11

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF

12

165. Plaintiffs, and the Class and Subclass they seek to represent, have no plain,

13 adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive

14 relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs,

15 and the Class and Subclass they seek to represent, are now suffering and will continue to suffer

16 irreparable injury from defendants' discriminatory acts and omissions.

17

166. Best Buy performed the acts herein alleged with malice or reckless

18 indifference. Plaintiffs and class members are thus entitled to recover punitive damages in an

19 amount according to proof.

20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class pray for relief as follows:

22

167. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Class;

23

168. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia,

24 Cheryl Chappel, Eric Blacksher, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Jessica Treas, Muembo Muanza,

25 Maurice Calhoun, and Nicholas Dixon as representatives of the Class and California Subclass;

26

169. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs' counsel of record as class

27 counsel;

28

- 31 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page33 of 35

1

170. A declaratory judgment that the policies or practices complained of herein

2 are unlawful and violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and California Government Code § 12940 et

3 seq.;

4

171. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Best Buy and its officers,

5 agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with

6 them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set forth

7 herein;

8

172. An order that Best Buy institute and carry out policies, practices, and

9 programs that provide equal employment opportunities for all women and minorities, and that it

10 eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment policies or practices;

11

173. An order restoring Plaintiffs and class members to their rightful positions at

12 Best Buy, or in lieu of reinstatements, an order for front pay benefits;

13

174. Back pay (including interest and benefits) for individual Plaintiffs and class

14 members;

15

175. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Best

16 Buy's ability to pay and to deter future conduct;

17

176. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys' fees to the extent

18 allowable by law;

19

177. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and

20

178. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems

21 necessary, just, and proper.

22 II

23 II

24 II

25 II

26 II

27 II

28 II

- 32 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page34 of 35

1 Dated: January 6, 2009 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
By: /s/ Eve H. Cervantez Eve H. Cervantez
James M. Finberg Eve H. Cervantez Jamie L. Crook ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Ste. 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
Kelly M. Dermody Daniel M. Hutchinson Barbra L. Williams 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Todd M. Schneider Guy B. Wallace Nancy Park Naomi Sunshine SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-710
Bill Lann Lee Vincent Cheng Lindsay Nako Nina Wasow LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON 436 14th Street, Suite 1505 Oakland, CA 94612-2703 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

- 33 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144 Filed01/08/09 Page35 of 35

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

3 Dated: January 6, 2009
4 5 6
7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
By: /s/ Eve H. Cervantez Eve H. Cervantez
James M. Finberg Eve H. Cervantez Jamie L. Crook ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Ste. 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
Kelly M. Dermody Daniel M. Hutchinson Barbra L. Williams 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Todd M. Schneider Guy B. Wallace Nancy Park Naomi Sunshine SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-710
Bill Lann Lee Vincent Cheng Lindsay Nako Nina Wasow LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON 436 14th Street, Suite 1505 Oakland, CA 94612-2703 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

26

27

28

- 34 -

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-OS-SOS6 PJH (MEJ)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page1 of 68
EXHIBIT A

", ,
'orm 5 (5i01.)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page2 of 68
.

CHARGE-OF DISCRIMINATION
TIli$ form Is aIfecIed by 1he Privacy Act of 1974. Sea enclosed Privacy Act statement and·other infoonation before completing ti1is form.

Chalge Presented To:
0 FEPA
[i] EEOC .

Agency(ies} Charge No(s):
370-2006-00381

(ifIdicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)
Jasmen. Holloway
~

California Department Of Fair Employment & Housing

and EEOC

state or localAgency; if3l1y

I I. Home Phone No. {IndArea ~J

Date 01 BIrth

City, Slate and ZIP COde

d is the Employer. Labor Organization, Employment Agency. Apprenticeship CommIttee, or State or local Government Agency That I Befteve

ninated Against Me or Others. (ffmoie than two, list under PARTlCULARfi below.)

I 1 No.~. MembeB Phone No. (IfII;Iude Area Code)

T.BUY STORES" l.P.

500 or More

.

I,dfbss

City. Slate and ZIP Code

Donahue Street, .Muir Beach, CA 94965

I 1 N!). ~s: Members PhOne Na.·{Indude Area Code}

\ddress

.City, State and ZIP Code

MlNATION BASED ON (Check approptiate box(es).)

o IX] o RACE

COlOR

00 o Do,SAB'UTY o o RErAUATlON

AGE

SEX

REUGION

NATIONAl ORIGIN OTHER (Specio/ below.)

\RTICUlARS ARE (Ifaddll/onal paper;$ needed, attach extfa Sheet(s)):
attached.

~l"E(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PlACE.

Earliast

Latest

12"()2·2005
o CONTINUINGACTION

. .

RECEIVED'

DEC 022005 .

lis chalge liled with bot~ tM EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I Wlil' he agendes if I change my address or phorle number and I wiH cooperate fully m in !he processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures.
e under penalty of pel]ury that the abOve is ~ and correct

EEOC-SFDO
NOTARY - When !leCe$Saf)' for state atJd l.DcaI Agency Requirements
I swear or affirm that I have read !he above charge and that it is lrue to the best of my.knowledge, information and beRef.
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

DiJ/e

ChBffJing Party signature

sueSCRIBEO ~D SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAlE

(month. day, year)

\

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page3 of 68

STATEMENT

~ EEOC CHARGE STATEMENT

I, JASMEN HOlLOWAY, state as follows: L

I am years ofage. I am AiTican American. My Social Security number is

. My·date ofbirth is .

T~ide at

"

. My home telephone nmnbcr is

2.

My complaint is a~st Best Buy Stores~ L.?.("<Best Buy"),.lieadquartered at· 7601 Penn

A'Venue South. Richfield, Minnesota 55423., and incorporated in Minnesota. I worked at the Best

Buy location·at 180 Donahue Street, Marin City, CA 94965. I began. my employment with Best

Buy on or about January 2001, and my employment with Best Buy ended on or about August

2005. My immediate supervisor was Terry Mason.

.

3.

Respondent is an entity with 15 or more employees during each ofthe last 20 calendar weeks.

4.
and I, and other women, African American Latino· etnployees~ have been SUbjected to
race and gcuder based discrimination by Best Buy. including. among Qther things, discrimination with respect to compensation and promotions, unequal job a.c;sj~ents. unequal training
opportunities., other terms·and conditions ofemployment, and il hostile wOIk enviromnent. Best
Bny··r.r..aiDtailifS.a:disrirnlna~ emplo)lmCnt system. tb,at us~ subJective ~riteria to prefer white
my men and to disadvantage \yemen and African American and Latino employees and applicants for
ctllplO~enl. In addition, I was terminated from employment because of my [""<lce and gender and in retaliation for raising issues of discrimination with my managers.

5.

During my empl{)yment at Best Buy. I have complained to company officials regarding

aest the dis<:rimination. D~1'ite these complaints,

Buy officials hav:e done little or nothing to

. address my con~.

.

6.
Page 1

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page4 of 68(Page 4 of 6)

ReJayFax via. part COM4
12/Bl/2065 16:14 7875649571 •• .-,,-~""" I~r

From: 7075549571
From: Schnaider and WaDace

121112005 3:11:55 PM (Page 3 Cif 3)
Pp/?£ 83
121112OO!5 2:48:37 PM (Page 3 of 7)

amx. Respond.Qlt"s apoIB. Ur.dudln:gTIlQ' ~ David

~ ~ T~BawJes,

~ MDti& .udRa)'moAd Goc1beer. are respoDaible fiJrtUe ~ hnstilewort

t::UvDDJ!DJ.IIaf,. ind nuUatiaa... to wJUdi t 'IrU ~ aad 1brnot1I1dD,g all2'CI1O.11aNc &kips to

~thedis~ bostUeWOlk~ aDdI'daH&tion1iOQl 0tlf1I11l'ing.

7.

I~tbischtupcm?,HiJaltoflJl)'AClfeadothcriImDa:dy&ibJatedAiiiQ8Q:~
Latino. - WOImJQem~ and~ tbrcmploy:tnmt:.

I ~ undct-thc pcaat~ ofpajmy that the fb%cgoiDgia trae lID«iftlrt'#l.
~.L .2005·

. ,

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page5 of 68

I: Jasmen Holloway

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPOR~NItY COMMISSION,

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE(ISSUED ON REQUEST)

From:

San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero Sulto 500 San Francisco. CA 94105

o

On behalf01person(s} aggrieved whose identity is CONRDENTIAL (29 CFR § 1601.7(8))

large No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

Scott H. Doughtie, Investigator" "

(415) 625-5663

mce TO nte PERSON AGGRIEVED: -

(See also the additional information enclosed with this form.)

tle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 andlor ttle Amerfcans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This Is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued

iCIer llUe VII andlor the ADA based on the above-numbe~ charge. It has been issued at your request .Your lawsuit under Title VII or

3ADA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN 90'OAYS of your receipt ofthis Notice or your right to sue based on this charge

II be lost (The time Ii~it for filing suit based on a state claim may be different)

o .

-

Mom than 18~ days have passed since the filing of this charge.

[ ! ] less thail 180 days ha~ passed since the filing of this charge. but I have deteonined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of the charge.
D The EEOC is terminating-its processing of this charge. f.!1 The EEOC will continue to process this charge.

J8 Discrimination in Emplo)'l11ent Act (AOEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge ~s filed

lti. 90 days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the paragraph marked below

'plies to your case:

"

D The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be fit~ in federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this NoUce. Otherwise, your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

o The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However, if 60 days have passed since the filing of your charge. you may file suit in federal.cr state oourt under the ADEA at this time. "

IUa! Pay"Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue under the EPA (filing an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought -federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment This means that backpay due for
tyVfolations that occurred more than 2 wars (3 ~rs) before you file suH may not be collectible.
you file suit based on !his charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office,

On behalf of the Commission

lc1osure(s)

~~.,."~ r .......k, H. Joan Ehrlich.
District Director

(Date MaIled)

BEST BUY STORES. LP. 180 Donahue Street Marin City, CA 94965

Hank Wilson Attorney at Law Schneider & Wallace 180 Montgomery, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 941"04

, -.,..

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page6 of 68

Enclosure with EEOC Form 161-8 (3198)
INFORMATIQN RELATED TO FILING SUIT
UNDER THE LAws ENFORCED BY THE EEOC (This information relates to filing suit in ~def8i or state court under Federal/aw. Ifyou a/So plan to sue claiming violations ofState Jaw, please be aware"that time limits and other
provisions ofState law may be shorter or more limited than thos~ described below.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS -
or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within _90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 9O-day period is over, your right to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend 10 consult an attorney, you should do so promptly. Give your attomey a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell him. or her the date you received it. Furthermore. in order to avoid any question that You did not act in a timely manner, it is
prudent that your suit be fded' within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailed to you (as indicated where the -Notice is signed) or the date of-the postmark, if later. Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate
State court is the general civtl bial court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to deckle-
after talking to yOur attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. Yo'u must file a "complainr 1hat contains a short
statement of the facts of your case which shows that you are entitled toretief. Your suit may include any matter alleged in the charge or, to the extent permitted by court decisions. matters like or related to the matterS alleged in
the charge. Generally. suits are brought in the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred. but in some cases can be brought where releVant employment records are kept, where the employment'would have been, or
where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can get answers from the office of the dent of the court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to write your complaint or make legal strategy decisions for you.

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS - Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in court within ,2 years (3 years fotwillful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment: ~ckpay due for violations that occuried more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. For example. if you were underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 7/1100 to 1211/00~ you should file suit before 711/02 - not 1211102 - in order to recover unpaid wages due for July 2000. This time limit for filing an EPA suit is separate from the 9o-day filing period under Title VU, the ADA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if
you also plan to sue under Title VII. the ADA or the ADEA. in addition to.suing on the EPA claim, suit must be filed
within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2· or3-year EPA bacl<pay recovery period.

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION - THle VII and the ADA:
If')IOU cannot -afford or have beenunable to' obtain a lawyer to represent you, the U.S. District Court having
jurisdiction in your case may, in limited circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such assistance must be made to the U.S. District Court in the fOIlTl and manner it requires (you should be prepared to
explain in detail your efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should be made well before the end of the 90..cfay period mentioned above, because such requests' do not relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days.

eeoc ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND

ASSISTANCE - All statutes:

You may contact the EEOC representative. shown on your Notice if you need- help in finding a lawyer or if you have

8IJy questions abo~t your legal rights, including advice on which-U.S. District Court can hear your case. If you need

to insPect or obtain a copy of information in EEOC's file on the charge, please request it promptly in writing and

provfde your charge number (as shown on your Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, all

charge files are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on the case. Therefore, if you file suit and want to

review the charge file, please make your review request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before finng suit, any

request should be made within the next 90 days.)

IF You FILE Surr, PLEASE SEND A COPY_OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO THIS OFRCE.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page7 of 68
~PARtMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
:E ADDRESS CHECKED BELOW)

1'8001 700-2.320'
I 100, To.er W.y..S~e'250
. IhkorafieId. CA saaos .
. '(66'. a95-27i9 .

EEOC NUMBER: 370-2006-00381
·.CASE NAME : JASMEN HOLLOWAY v.
BEST BUYJ STORES 7 L .. P ..

1320 ~ Sbrtw A"-e. Suite 1S0
Ffesna. CA 93710 (5591 244-4i60

DATE

: December 5,. 2005

NOTICE TO cOMPLAiNANT AND RESPONDENT

I 611 Wes't Sixth SUeet. Slita 1500
_, las Angefes. CA 99017 (213) 439-6799
1.515 Clay StnIec. Suita 701 o.uand,. CA 94612' 1510J622-2Ml •

This is to~dvise you that the above-referenced complaint is being -referred tQ the California Department ~f Fair Employment and H9using (OFEHI by ~ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity .Commission (EEOC)~ The CQmplaint. will be filed in accordance with California Government Code seCtion ] 2960. This ~otice constitutes service pursuant to Government Code section J:2962.
No response to the OFE" is required by the respondent.

c .
.lOOO '·0" StreIit. State 120
.~m~CA.95814 (916) 445-5523

The EEOC will be responsible for the processing of this complaint. DFEH wiU not be conducting an investigation into'this' matter. EEOC should be contacted directly for anY·.discussion of the charge. OfEH is. closing itS case on th~. bas!s of. "processing waived to another agency."

1350 FIWIt ~t. Suite 3005

SIft Diogq. CA 92101

-

'619J ~5-26~t

S!!'I Ftandsco 0jstrfc1 OfrlC!l
1615 allY Stn:tet. Suite 701
Oa~CA94612 1~101622·2.973
s.n11' North Market StntGt. Suita 810 .lose. CA 95113
(.co8J 277·1277

210t.East FQaJtb Street. Suite 255-8 Santa AI1;I. CA '92705 17141 55&:42&&

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT OF RIGHT~TO:'SUE

Since DFJ:H will not be issuing an accusation. this letter is also your right-ta-sue

notice. According. to Government Code section 12965# subdivision {bt you may bring a civil action u~der the provisions 9f the Fair ,Employment and -

Housing Act: against the .person. employer. labor ~rganii:a1ion or employmel'!t

agency named in the above-referenced comp1aint. The lawsuit-may be file(,l in a

State of California Superior or Justice Court. G9vemment Code ~ec:tiOll12965,

subdivision (b), provides that suc;:h a civil action must.be brought within one

year from the date of this notice. Putsu,ant to Government Code' section

12965, subdivision (dUl), this one~year pe.riod will be tolled during ·the

pen,gel1CY of the EEOC·s investigation of your cOlnplaint. You .should 'consult an

att;omey to determine with acc,uracy the date by which a civil aCtioo must be

filed. This right to file a Givil·action may be waived in the event a settieinent
agreemen~'is signed. au~stions about the right io file under federal law should

be referred to the EEOC.

.

The DFEH does not retai,n case records beyond three years after a complaint is filed.

Remember: This Right-Ta-Sue Notice allows you to file a private lawsuit in State court.

Sincerely,
~
c1\ .~~(
.' ANDA J. . :RB· Chier Deputy .' ector

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page8 of 68

CP Endosurewilh EEOC foml5 (M)t)

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Under the Privacy Act of. 1974. Pub. 'Law 9~579, authority to request personaJ data and its uses are: '

1. FORM NUMBER/TI11.E1DATE. EEOC Form 5, Charge of Discrimination (5/01).
2. AUTHORITY. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b), 29 U.S.C. 211.29 U.S.C. 626~ 42·U.S~C. 12111.
3. PRINCIPAL PURPOSES. The purPos~ of a charge. taken on this fqrrn or othelWise reduced to.
Writing (whether later' recorded on this form or not) are, as applicable under the EEOC anti- .
discrimination statutes (EEOC stab,ltes). to preserve private suit- rights under the EEOC-statutes. to
invoke the EEOC's jurisdiction and. where dual-filing or referral, arrangements exist, to begin state or local proceedings.

4. ROun~E Uses. This form i$ used to·provide facts ·that m~y establ~sh the existence of matters

covered by the EEOC statutes,(and as applicablel othe(federal~ state or ·li>caI,laws}. ,Information gwen will"be used by staff to gUi~e its:mediation and-.investigatioo,'effOrtS and; 'as awncable; to

, determine, condliate and;-litigate' claims ofunlawful Qiscrimination. This form may be presented to

or disGiosed to other federal. state or local agencies as'approp{iate' or necessary in carrying out

EEOC·s functions. A copy oftJ:lis charge will ordinarily be sent to the respondent organization against

which the ch~rge is made.

.

,

5. WHETHER. DISCLOSURE IS MANDATORY; EFFEcT OF NOT GIVING'INFjJRMAnON. Charges must be
not reduced to writing and should identify the charging and responding parties arid the actions or policies
complained of. Without a written charge, Eeoc will ordina,rily apt, on the complaint. Chat:ges
under Title \:,11 or the ADA must be sworn to· Or· affirmed (either by IitSrng this'form or by presenting ,a notarized statement' or unsworn declaration under penalty of'perjury); charges under the ADEA
should ordinarily be signed. Charges may be cfarified or amplified later by amendment. It is not
, mandatory that this form be used to make a cI1arge. '

NoncE OF RIGHT TO REQUEST SUBS, TA. tinAL WEIGHT REVIE,W

Charges filed at a state or local Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA) that dual-fifes charges

with EEOC will ordinarily be handled first by tlie FEPA. Some charges filed at EEOC may also be

first handled by a FEPA under worksharing agreements. You will be told which agency will handle

your ch<;lrge. When the FEPA is the first to hand.le the charge. it will notify you of its final resolution

of the matter. Then, if you wish EEOC to give .,Substantial Weight Review to the FEPA's final

on, findings, you must ask us irPiJrjting,to do so within 1'S.days of yotir·re~tptofits' firujings. OthOCwlse,

we- wilt ordina(i.~y adopt the FEPA!s finding ~md close· our,file· tn.~ cfl~rge.'

.,.. '

NOTICE OF NON-RE"rAUAOON REQUI8.EMENTS
please notify EEOC or the state or local agency'where you filed your charge if retaliat~on is taken
against you or othefs who oppose' discnmination or cooperate in any investigation or lawsuit concerning this Charge. Under ~ectiQn 704(a} ofTitle vn. Section 4(d) of,~e ADEA and Section
503(~)' of. the ADA. i,t is' unlawful for arJ.emp/oyerto discriminat~ against present or former employees
or j6b applicants. for an employment agency to discriminate against anyone, or for a union to ,diSqi.mina.te against it:; membe~ or .membership applican,ts, because they ha:,e oppo~ed any
pra~bce made unlawful by the statutes, or because they have made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any man,ner in an investigation. proceeding, or he~fing under theJaws. The Equal Pay
Act ha,s similar provisions and Section 503(b) of the ADA prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats or
interference with anyone for exercising or enjoYing, or aiding or encouraging others in their exercise or enjoyment of, rights under the Act.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page9 of 68
EXHIBITB

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page10 of 68
...

ClIARGE OFDISCRlMINAnON
oon is affected bY tire Privaey Act of 1914; S~ Privacy Act Statr:malt before completing
PIJTI,.

AGENCY
o FEPA
• EEOC

345-20&)-00059

myGama

0lY. STATE ANDznoo:mE

en IS TIi:E I:MPLOYER. LABOR O:RG}.N]ZATlON, EMPLOYMENT AGENcY. APP1.UJiTlasmP COMMITTEE. OR-STATE OR
~ GO'\IERNMENT AGENCY THAT I BELll:VE DISCRlMiNATED AGAlNST ME OR. OTB'ERS. (Itmore than 0I1e, list uncia- PARTICULARS
I

rADDRESS Fore&tAve.

crrv. STAtt AND 2IP COni.
Chico.CA 95928

Awrox- 100,000

(530) 566-1012 (Chico) Butte

o lC£ o COLOR • SEX

RELIGION D NATIONAL OlUGlN

• RETALIATION o AGE o DlSABIi.rrr
ltTJaJtJ.RS AJtE (/f~l s~ iI ru:t;dd. <d1ttd _~:
e see attached)

Ga OTHER t~) EPA

DAn! DlSCiUMlNA11ONTOOKl'LACE

£ARLIESJ'

LAnsT

.Apn12004 Oc:t~ 2005

• CONlINUlNG ACTION

REC.:'EiVED ---~.~--.------~~--~
1 .[jC_~.·.~ <l 2005 EEC...". :·:~:.'./.'L;.Ao DO.
.. ,. - - - - - •• •-'::="'--_,..-J

want this ~ filed with both the EEOC and the swe or local Agency, if
mil advise the 'agencies if! change my address or tclcpbo1le number and
~ fully with Ihem in the processing ofmy chatge in accordance with their
lire.

NOTARV -(\Vhcn necessary far ~tate ID1d Local Requirements)
I swear or affirm !hat I have read the ~ve ~ and fhat it is we
1be to best ofmy btowledge. infurmation and be~

re undel" pcmatty ofpcrjury Ihat the foregoing i.

SICiNAnJRE OF cOMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME lHIS DA'IE
(DaYt roonth. and year)
I

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page11 of 68

Charge ofDiscrimination - Amy Garcia

I. 1 am female. I was hired by Best Buy in August 2001 as a customer service:

en:iP.loyeo in its Chico~ California store. During my tenure with the company. 1 have also held

thepositions ofMedia Product Specialist, Media. Senior, Merchandise Senior;, and Media .---.

Supervisor. 1 have repeatedly expressed interest in being promoted to manager. Although Best

'Buy managers have told me that I ~ qualified for this positio~ I have yet to be promoted and

ha-ve been denied promotions 38 recently as 1uly 2005. In addifio~ I have been paid less than

male employees in comparable positions and have been retaliated-against for complaining of

discrimination.

.

I have received excellont periOnnance rCv'iews during my tenure at Best Buy which have-

indicated that I am eligible for promotionto manager. During my entire employment I have
l?eea interested and available for promotion and have repeatedly made clear to my rriariagers my

iut((CSt in adv~cement. However. despite my excellent p~IIIlance evalu.ation~, Best Buy has .

less continued to deny me promotional opportunities and has instead promoted male employees who

are qualified.

'

.

There have been a number ofpromotions to senior. supervisor, and manager in the Chico
store during the four years I have wolked at Best Buy_ I am infOrmed and believe that there have
been scores ofsenior, supCl'Visor and manager positions filled across the country during this time. the vast majority ofwhich hav.e gone to men.

In or around January 13, 2005 I,was denied a promotion to Ptoduct Process Manager.

When Ileamed that a:'manager position might be available in the Product lTocess Departmen~ I

imIDediately expressed my desire to be promoted to Manage.r~ as I had done several times in the

Past. aDd informed the General Manager that I would like to apply for the positiOIL The General

Manager confirmed that a manager position was availa.ble.. but advised me that it would not be

posted and there was no use applying because someone had already been chose;n. The General

Manager further stated that I was qualified for the position but inferred that I would not.be

considered for promotiQD. at the Chico store because ofmy status as a single mother. Shortly

thereafter, Best Buy promoted a male emplayee who had less experience than me to the Product

Pro~ :manager position.

.

Best Buy routinely fails to post job openings for manager and other bigh..level positions on Best Buy'sintem.aljob opening system r·JOSJ~. Bet\yeen October 2004 and September
_ 2005, approximately ten male employees were promoted to manager positions at the Chico store.
Despite being weU-qualified-for these positions. I was denied the opportunity to apply and was not co~dered because the positions were nQt posted on JOS. IfI had known these m~ger
positions were available I would have applied. I am aware ofat least one other female employee
who was qualified for these positions and would have applied had they been posted. ___ .

.In addition to denying me promotional opportunities, Best Buy has paid me less .them niale employees in comparable positions. In April 2004 my Operations Manager advised me that
my salary eouId not be raised any higher because I had reached the maximum salary cap for my position as supervisor. In August 2004 I learned that male employees in comparable positions with less qualifications were receiving higher pay. I raised this issue with my district manager

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page12 of 68

who oonfinned that males were,. in fact. receiving higher salaries. Although I eventually

received a rais~, I was told as recently as April 2005 that Best :Buy would not increase my

salaIy any higher an,d that I would not receive a raise at my next revieW_ I am informed and

believe that I am still receiving a lower salary than male employees in.comparable positiOns. In

addition. I have also obsexved that other female employees are paid less than male employees in

Comparable positions.

.

.

I have routinely brought to the attev.tion ofmy supervisors the comp~y's compensation

md promotion practices which unfairly favo~ male collea.gu.es.. In November 2004 and again

in January 2005, I compla4Ied to Best Buy's Department ofHuman Resources and to lIly district

manager of the diScriminatory treatment to which I was subjected. Upon·receiving my

cOmplaints.· Best Buy bas further ~criminated and retaliated against me by removing my job

functioDS~ assigning me fewer and less favorable shifts, and downgrading my perfoimance .

evaluations•.as recently as ~priI20Q5.

-

.

.

For example. Best Buy retaliated against ID:e by changing my shifts so that they conflicted

-with my child care responsibilities. When I asked why my shifts were changed, my direct manager stirt~ it was because the trUmbers in my department were low_However, at the,time

the depamnent I headed was raDkedone ofthe top 50 departments in the company and was the
most profitable departinent in the Chico store. Best Buy continued to retaliate against me by

assigning me to sbifts that my managers knew were Unpossible for me to watk. When I

complained to my manager about this retaliation, he told me that I shoufd get off the sales floor

and stated that a p-Qsition in the merchandising department would "1letter.suit mEf' given that I· bad Children. nest Buy refused to resto~ my hours to wbat they had been before I complained

of discrimination. As a result, on February 27. 2005, I Was forced to step down .from my

.supervisor position in the media department to take a non-managerial position in another

departmeo:t. Upon moving to this new positi.on~ Best Buy continued to retaliate against mc by

rcqniring me to perfomi certain managerial tasks without compensation, awl giving me fewer

and less favorable shifts.

n. I believe I have been discriminated against by Best Buy because ofmy sex for the following reasons: I am well qna1ified for promotion but have been repeatedly passed over in favor ofmales With lesser experience and abilities_ I have also received less compensation than male employees with comParable qualifications. Best Buy has retaliated against me in the fotm oftmequal teRns: and conditions of emplo)'Il'lent for complaining of diserimination on the basis of sex.
. . m. I believe that Best Buy h(lS a pattem fU1d practice ofdiscriminating against its female
employees in filling senior, sUpervisor and store management positi~ns and by subjecting female employees to diserimination with respect to promotiousp training. jop assignments, and compensation in its stores nationwide_ In addition) I believe Best Buy has a pattern and practice of retaliating against female employees who have complained of discrimination based on sex'. I
bring this charge on behalf ofmyself and. other similarlY situated women who have been denied
promotional opportui:ri.ties, paid less. and retaliated against as a result ofthcir sex.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page13 of 68 F-935

.0(; Fgrm 161-S (3I9IS)

u.s. EQUAL EI'dPLO~MENT OPPORTUNnY COMMISSION

OF NOTICE RIGHT to SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)

To: Ms. Amy Garcia

From: EEOC
'401 "B') Street~ Suite 510 San Diego, CA 92101

o

On behalfofpe~Of1(s) eggrl$voo Who$e Identity ;s
CONFIDEN11AL (29 CFR § 1601. i(a))

:harge No.

eEOc Representatlva

Telephone No.

:45..2006-00059

Legal Officer of the Day

(619) 557·7235

(See also the additional information encJos.ed with this form.)
~onCE TO 'l'Hi: PERSON AGGRIEVED: 'ide VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 al'1d/o~ the Americans with Disabilities.ACt (ADA): lhis is your Notice of Right to Sue. issued Inde.- Title VII iJndlor the f;.IJA based on the above-numbered charye. It has been Issued e.t your reqUest Your lawsuit under TItle VII or he ADArnust be filed in federal orstate court WITHIN 90 DAYS ofyour receipt ofthis Notice OI"yourright to sue based on Hiis charge ,.jU be lost. (Thi! time limit for tiling suit based On 3 state. claim may be difforeol)
o More than 180 days have passed $ince the filing of this charge.

[!] .Less ihan 150 days have piilssed since the firmg of this charge. but I have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC wnl

o

be able to oornplete its admil'listratiw processln9 within 180 days from the filing of the marge.

eeoc The

is terminating its processing of this charge.

[i] The EEOC will continue to process this charge. .

\ge mscrimiriation in Employment Act (ADEA):. You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed
Intil 90 days after you receive no1ice that we have completed action on the cha.rge. In this regard, the paragraph marked below
lPPUes to your case:
o The EEOC is Closing your case. iherefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be flied in federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS ofyoul" receipt of this lIlotice. otherwise. your right to sue based 01'1 the above-numbered marge wiIJ be lost.
o The EEOC is continlJing im handling of your ADEA caSe. However. if 60 days have passed since the filing of your charge, you may file suit in federal Or state court Onder the ADEA at this time. .

:qualPayAct {EPA}: You already have the right to SUB underthe EPA (f~ing·an EEOC (;harge is notreqLiired.) 5PAsuits must be brought n redel'aJ or state cout[\Wthin 2 years (3 years for Willful violations) of:t:he e1legea.EPA underpayrmmt This means that baekpay doo for :lny violation$ .that oecurrad more than 2 years (3 years} beforu yOu file suit may not be collectible.
;r you file suit based on this charge, please sand 3 eepy of your court complaint to this office.
On behalf of theCornmission .

Eneloswe(s

--.. i-ei~~N-~-------

(Date Mailed)

CC! Shalanda D. Ballard, Best Buy Corporate Employment Counsel
Gena·E. Wilbek. Uef. Cabraser. Heimann & Bemstein.
LLP

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page14 of 68 F-Q35

INFORMATION REl..AiED TO FlUNG SUIT
UNDER THE LAws ENFORCED BY THE Eeoc

(This information raltJtes to filing suit in Federal or state court under Federpllaw. If you afso plan to sue claiming violations ofState law, p/f!ase be aware that tif!1e I,mlts and other
provIsions of State law may be shorter ormore lImited than those described below.)

PRI\fATE Surr RIGHlS -

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
or the Age Discrimination in Emp.loyn'lent Act (ADEA)=

to In order pursue this matter further. you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within

90 daYS of the date you Tef:eive this Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 9O-day

period is over. your right to sLle based on the charge referred to In this Notice will be: lost. If you intend 10 consult an

attorney. you should do so prompUy. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice. and its envelope, and tell him or her

.the date you received it.- Furthermore, in order to ~id any question that you did not act in a timely manner. it is

prudent that your suit be filed within 90 days of tI1edate this Notice was mailed to you (as indicated mere the

Notice is signed) or th~ date of the postmark. if later.

'

Your lawsuit may be filed in U.s. District: Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate State court is the general civH trial court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enougtl. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short statement of the facts of yotlr case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may incltJde any matter alleged in the charge or•.to the extent permitted. by court deciSions, matters liKe or related to the matters alleged in the charge. Generally. suits are brought in the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where the en'lployment would have been. or
where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions. you usually can get answers from tne office
of the derk of the court where you are bringing suit. but do not expect that office to write. your complaint or make
tegal strategy decisions fur you.

PRNATE SUfi'" RIGHTS - Equal pay Ad. (I:;PA);

vsaw EPA suits must be filed in cOurt within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment

backpay due for vio\c;i(iQnri' that occurred more than 2 YHrs (3

before you fife suit may not be collectible.

For example•.if you were underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 711/00 to 1211/00. you should file suit

before 7/11C12 - not 1211/02 - in order to recover unpaId wages due for July 2000. This time limit for filing an EPA

suit is separate from the 9O--day filing period under TiUe VII. the ADA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if

you also plan to sue under TItle Vll. the ADA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim, suit must be filed

within 90 days of this Notice !!!!l!! within the 2- or 3-year EPA backpay recovery period.

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATSON - Title VII and the ADA:
If yqu cannot afford or have been unable to obtain Q lawyer to represent you, the U.S. District Court having jurisdiction in your case may, in fimitetJ circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such· assIstance must be made to the U.S. District Court in l,he funn and manner it requires (you should be prepared to
om explain In detail your efforts to retain an attorney). Requests shOUld be made well before the end of the 9<k:fay
period mentioned above. because such requests do relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days.

ATfORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC AsSISTANCE - All Statutes:
You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in finding a lawyet or if you nave
any qusstions about your legal rights, including advice on which U.S. Ofstrict Court can hear your case. If you need
to inspect or obtain a copy of information in EEOC's file on the charge. please request it promptly in writing and
provide your charge number (as shown on your Notice). While EEOC destroys charge tiles after a certain time, all charge flies are kept for at least 6 months after our last adlor. 01'1 the ease. Therefore. ifyou file suit arid want to
review the charge f~e. please make your ~view request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before filing suit. any
re'quest should be made within the next 90 days.)
IF You FILE Surr, PLEASE SEND A COpy OF YOUR COURT COMPLAtlflTO THIS OffiCi!.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page15 of 68

'DEPARTMENT Of FAIR EMPLOYMENT

I .

(See

ADDRESS

C~ECKEO

~OW- l

:

, -"

&

HOUSING-

.

.

.

'~K-~O--. :t •

Ids SbaIanda BaNaro
Cot'porata EmpIo)nlent Counsei

BEST BUY ,

_'

7601 Penn Avenue South '
RichIfefd. MN 55423 .

EEOC N~ 345-2006-00059. GarQa.'Amy-Vs. BEST BUY :

o ,'. 1"-OE.'6IRw ~ SuD 150

"c ~ Q. .tI371Q _ "

_,

I55!Ii ~60 -

NOnce TO COMPLAlNANl",AND RESPONDENT,

'D' r-o,p'

"
"

1".-...-..S.b.I~ 1h S8tn0o0e1t.7SUit.-

1509
'

". - ~'. t2.13.~"

...

. "-

:-

-

_ '_

-.

This is to advise Vi>U that 'the ~ferenced compiaintfs ~ referred'to . the Catifornia ~artment of Fair Empto~ and Housing cof:&Q bY1h~ u.s.
fquaJ Empfoyment oppQftunity Cornmissio~ fEEOCf. Thq cqmplaint will be "filed in accordance with.Caiifomia·Govenlmeftt-Code seCiion.1296Q. This notice -:
constinJtes ~etVice pursuant to_ GOvemment COde sectiGn 129Ei2.

-

'- .

.

No response toO the DFEH is ¥eqUi~ hi the re§Pondent.

The eEoc. wit( be responsi~te fOr theP.recessi."9 ofthis CGrnpI4l~, DF.EH will
iIot be conducting an ir.tV8S1igation into this matter. EEOC should be cont;1Ct'e.d· di~y fur ~ oFScUssion of the charge. DI3M is dosing itS ~e on ttia-basis
of ·processing waiVed to another SSJency."

-"

NOl1CE TO COMPLAJNANT OF RlGt!T-TO-SUE

SinCe OFEH' will not be i$suing an aCc;usatiof1. ~is Jetter ~ al~ Y~Qr rigtrt~e.

notice. Accc:irding' to Govemment Code.-sectUan 129B?_ subdimiori "(b),# you,

may bring a civil acUc:m 'und~the p..aV;sions of the Fair:Em'PJoymem ami -

Housing Act againsuite pei-son~ emproyer.IaOOr- organization or employment -

, agency aamed in the abeve-referenced' eompraint. ~ ia~uit may be filed' in a

State of California Superior oi.Justic;e COurt... Goverqffient Code section .12965,

J' 'I11 .... ~SInlcf..~al0

;,.. San.JaR, CA 95113., ,

ill C-408I277.1271

_

subdlvision(bJ. ,provides tIJat'Sucha ciVil action must be brought. witAiR one

year fTOm the date of this notice; Pucsuarit. tG Gooiemmen.t Code Section.....

1~9B5. 'subalVision '(d)(1t. this ane..year psmcid WiN Il8 tolled ~ ute

"

pendenCy ofthe.EEOC·s inveStigation of yaurcomptaint. You should consult ad' .~

- a~ey to 'determine \'IiitR accuracY ~ date by wNch a cMI aCtion mUst be

]

:s21.01.

e.t f1Iunto Street. AM. CA ,927Q5

SuiUo

2\i5-B

filed. This right to file a civii.aCUoil may be walv.ed in the even~ a settlement - :
agreement. is signed. Questior$ about the right to fite':Qlder federai law sboukf.--

( (7141·65804268

. be referred to the EEOC.

"

The OFEH.does -not retain case records .beyond three 'years, after a'compjaint is'

filed.

' .

,"

" '

Remember: This-Right·to:.Sue·N':otic'e, allows'you ~o ,file a private iawsuit- in State court.

Sincerely.
zI: 2'-.
{. ~~.( . ANDAJ-' JRB . Chie.t Deputy .~ ector

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page16 of 68
EXHIBIT Cl

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page17 of 68

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINAllON

- AGENCY

un is ilfiCc.tc:d by~ Privacy Act 011974, S= Privao;y-,II.cl Slalcmen1 bct"an> c:ompletins m.

o FEl'A
.~EOC

CHAROf NUMBER
340-2005-02093

iadQlt MT..l'4 .... MG.) tcryI Chappel
"ADOIt£SS

1 Cf!, DEPT FAm. EMPLOYMENT ANR HOUSING and EEOC State orlot:trl.fKmKv. ifa.."

HOME TE.EPHQNE (tnd~ -

<:ode)

caY. STATE AND ZI1' CODE

0111'£ OF QIRTH

m nn; IS .£MPWYER, LABOR ORGAN1ZAllON. EMPLOYMENT AGENCY. APPR'ENTICEStnP COMM11TEE, OR STATE. OR
aac. LI.. Gc)~ AGENC'( THAT I BELl E.VE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME OR OTIJERS. (If I'I1OJC than list uncles" PARTICULA~

Jt1Y~ Inc..

NUMBl'JlOf 6Mf'1J:TlEf:j,. M50fSERS
Approx. 100.000

lELE£'HONE (;.elm /I'M COIlt) _

. -

(858) 831·9003 (fYIiraMesa)

iJ\VDR£Ss

CITY. 5TATE ANt> ZIP CODE

..

Mira Mesa Bl"d.

San Diego, CA 92126

(530) 566-1012 (Ctico)
CotJNJ\'
San Diego

Forest Ave_

Chico.CA 95928

Butte·

OFOISClUMlNATJON BI\SED ON (CIi«lc ~1t:bqz("')J

o o ~CE

COLOR .S£X DREIJG10N

NATIONAL ORlGIN

:::lRETAUAnON o AGE. ODJSABlUTY o OTHER (.specih)
.R"flc::Ul.ARS ARE UJ~ space it nr:.:Jbl, otta..1 ""rnr s~),

;e see attaclled}

DAT.E DlSC1Ut4l~nONTOOk PLAa:

EA.lUJEST

.(.AT£ST

Apri12003

Sep~CI" 2004

• CONTINUING ACTION

RE-C-EIVE_D.
1 APR 2iZOD5t
. r=EocIL:.Dn-
l--'":::j

want tpis chat~ filed with both the: EEOC and the State or local Agency, if
will advise lhe agE:llcies in cb;mge!: my address or tc:1cphonc Jlumber 'and
:rate funy with them in the processing of my &~e in accQrdance with their
dure.

NOTARY • (When neCessary for State!: and LOcal R.equirements)
I swear or affirm Olaf I baV'c: read the ahovt: c:hargc and that it i$ true . to the: best of m.y Jcr,(;Iwledgc. il'lformation and belief:

ate under penalty ofpeljUly tbat the f~gojng is true and CQfTCI;t.

SIGNATURE. OF COMPLAINANT

3f1.tP~

#~~,~ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO SEFOREME nns DATE (Day, month, and ;te;uo)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page18 of 68
. -.

Chai-t;c of DisoeriDlination - Cheryl Chappd
am I. . 1 female. 1 was hired by Best Buy in July 2001 as an Administrative Senior in
. its ChiCQ) California store. In September 2004· [ transferred to the Best Buy store in Mira Mesa,
Califomi.-. where I have continued to work as an Administntive Senior. During ~y tenure wil:h
the company.. I have repeatedly express~ interest in being promoted to Supervisor. Although · Best Buy m~geIS. have: fuld me that J am quali.6ed .for this position, I have yet to be promoted · and have been denied promotions as ·recently as September 2004. In additio~· I have been paid
less than male employees in comparable positions. .
I hav~ received exc~Ilent perfonnance reviews during my tenure at Best J3uy which have indicated that I am eligible for promotion to Supervisor. During my entire employment I have
been interested and. available for promotion andfhave .rep~tedly made clear to my managers my
interest in advancement. However, despite my excellent performance evaluations, Best Buy has continned to deny me promotional opportunitjes and bas instead promoted male employees who
'are less qualified.

In both the Chico and Mira Mesa stores there have been a.numbeT ofpromotions to

senior, supervisor, and·manager during the three and a h~f years I have worked at Best Buy: I

am infonned and believe that there have been scores of senior~ supervisor and manager positions

filled.

ac:rpss

the

coUntry

dur.ing

this

time.

the

va

st
.'

ma.jo

ri

t

y

of which

have

gone

to

men"

In April 2003 I applied for a ~motio:.n to Operations Supervisor. I had already woIked .

·in the Operations Department for almost two years at the time ofmy application, and my

me · managers had told me that I was well-qualified for the promotion_ However) when I asked the
biring mauager the status of my application he infonned that he had decided to promote a

male CQlPloyee to the position instead_The male employee who was promoted had worked at

the store fqr only four months) on a part-time basis. and had never worked in the Operations

pepartment prior to receiving this promotion. When I inquired why the manager had chosen .this

male ~ployee over myself and the other female applicant who had applled for the position. th~

manager replied, "it's a man thing:" Later. when I asked why so ~ew female employees held

positions on the sales floor, 1 was told that Ugjrls can~t sen."

.

mSeptember 2004 I transferred to Best BUY~$' store in Mim Mesa. California and again
.expressed my desire to be promoted to Supervisor. J was informed by my managers that the Mira, Mesa store had a Supervisor position open and both the Operations Manager and the District Manager of the Chico store indicated that 1was more than qualified for the job. When I spoke to the Operations Manager at the Mira Mesa store he COJi,finned that the supervjsor position was open.. However. when I amved at the Mira Mesa store I was told that the position
had already been filled. I subsequently learned that Best Buy bad promoted a male employee ., who had less eJq>Crience than me to the Supervisorposi~on.

During my employment. Best Buy has paid me less than male employees in comparable
positions. J have learned that male employees with less qualifications are receiving higher pay. I
.raised this issue with my direct manager in July 2004 who initially refused to adjust my salary so
that it was co~ensurate with male employees doing the same job. Although I was eventually
t~ld that I would ~eceive a raise. effective July ]472004,1 still have not Teceived the retroactive

374261.2

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page19 of 68

.

~

pay that I am. du.c:. 1 have a,Jso Qbscrvc:d "that other Ccznalc em.pJoy~E:S are paid less than :maJe

employees in cOIilparable POSitiQDS.

.

II. ! believe I have been discI;irriinated against by Best Buy beCause ofmyseJC for the
.following reasons: .1 am well qualified for promotion but have been repeatedly passed over in
:fil:vor ofmales with lesser experience and abilities. I have received less compensation than male
employees with comparable q~alifiC?tions..

~. I believe that Best Buy has a pattern. and pnctice ofdiscriminating against its female . emplQyee& in filling senior, supervisor and store management positions and by subj~tingfemale
employees to discrimination with respecl to promotions, training. job assignmeo.ts. and compensation in its stores nationwide. I bring this charge on behalfof myself and other similarly
sitl;Lated women whO have b~ denied pTOlllotional opportunities·and paid less as a result oftheir
sex.

)742672

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page20 of 68 F"935

U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMaiT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Nonce"OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQL/EST)

To: Ms. Cheryl Chappel

From: EEOC 401 "8" Street, Suite 510
San "Diego. CA 92101

o

On behlJlf ofperson(s) aggriev.ed whose identity is CONf!tDENTIAL (29 CFR § 16D1.7(~})

:;t)arge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

340-2005..02093

LeQal Offlcerof the Oay

(619) 557..7235

~O'nCE TO lHE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

(See alS<) the additions/Information enclosed with this form.}

nUR VII of th9 Civil Rights Aci of 1964 and/or the AmericaTls wltb Disabilities Act (ADA): This is your Notioe of Right to Sue. issued
iJnder Title VII andforthe NJA based on the above-numbered charge. It has been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII or
the ADA must be f1100 in federal or stata court WITHIN go DAYS ofyour receipt ofthIs Notif;a or your right to sue based on this charge
Nill be lost (The time limit for filing &lit based on a state claim may be"different.) "

More than 160 days have passed &ince the filing of thi5 charge.

Less than 180 days have passed sin<:e the tiling of1hi$ charg~, but Il'Iava determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of the charge. The EEOC is terminating its processing of this ctwrge.

The EEOC will eontinue to process this cnarge.

.'

Age DisGriminatlon in Employment·Act (ADEA): You may sue under the AOEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed
until 90 days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. [ri thiS fegatd, the paragraph marked below
appn~ to your case; "
o The EEOC is closing your ease. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of tbis NotIce. Otherwise. your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.
o The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case, However. If 60 days have ~ed since the filing of your cf1~rge, you may file suit in federal or state CQurt under the ADEA at this time.

EqUal Pay Act (EPA): You already bave1t1e right to sue underfhe EPA (filing an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be. brought in fedetal or $tate court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA undGfpa.ymoi1t This means that backpay due for any violations d1at occulTed more than 2 yaaJs (3 years) before:you file sllit may not be collectible..

If you file suit based on this charge. please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.

"On behalf at the Commission

EnClosute(s

--~----

(Date Maifed)

CC: Shalanda D. Esallatd. Best Buy
Corporate Employment Counsel
Gena E... Wiltsek. Lief. Cabraser. Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page21 of 68 F-1I35

EndOSUre v.1Ih EEOC Fcnn 161·8 (3.098)

INFORMATION RElATED TO FILING SUIT
eeoc UNDER THE LAws EN'FORCED BY mE

(This infom;atlon (S/~tes !o filing suit in FQderal or state court under FedeTfJ/,law.
,Ifyou also plan to sue c/alm(ng VIolations of State law. please be aware that til[le lImitS and other ptovlsions ofState law may be shorter or more lImited then those described below.)

PRIVATE Surt RIGHTS -

Title VII of the CMI Rights Act. the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Of the Age DiscriminatIon in Employment Act (MEA):

In order to pursue this matter further. you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within

'penOd 90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Therefore. you should Imep a record of this date. Once this 9O-day
is over, your right to stie baSed on the charge refelTed to in this Notice will be lost If you intend to Consult an

attorney. you should do so ptomptly. Give your' attorney a copy of this Notice. and its envelope. and tell him or her
the date you re~ived it Furthermore, in order to avoid any qllestion that you did not act in a timely manner, it is

prudent that your suit be fil~ within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailed to you (as indicated where the

Notice Is stgnetl) or the date of the postmark, if later.

-

Your lawsuit may be filed io U.$. District Court Of a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate State court is the general civn trial court) Whether yot,l file 111 Federal or State court is a matter' fOl' you to decide after talking to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You' must file a -~plai!'lt" that contains a short
statement of the t.!icts of yoOr case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may Include any matter alleged in the charge or. to the extent permitted by court decisions,' matterS like or related to the matters alleged in the charge. 'Generally: suits are brought in the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some cases can be brought where relevant employment reoord~ are kept, where the employment woUld have been. or where the res'pondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can get answers from the offICe of the clerk of the court where )'Ou are bringing suit. but do not expect that office to writE!, your complaint or make
legal strategy deCisions fur you.

PRIVATE Surr RIGHTS - Equal Pay Act (EPA):

EPA suils must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment:

backpay due for violations that occurred more than 2 years13 ~rn before you file 5uit may not be collectible.

For example, if you were underpaid under ~e EPA for work performed from 7/1/00 to 1211100. you should file suit

b'efore 7/1102 - nat 1211/02 - in order to recover unpaid wages due for July 2000. This time limit for filing an EPA

suit is separatefTom the 9O--day filing period under TiUe V1I, the ADA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if

you also plan to sue under Title VII, the ADA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim. suit must be filed

within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year EPA backpay recovery period.

.

ATTORNEY REPRE.SENTAl10N - Title VII and the ADA: If you cannot afford or have been llnable to obtain a lawyer to represent you. the U.S. District Court having jurisdiction in your case may, in limited cireumstances. assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for sucb assistance rnust be made to the U.S. District Court in the form and manner it requires (you shoul~ be prepared to • explain in detall your efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should be made well before the end of the 9O-day period mentioned above. because such requests do not relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days.

ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC AsSISTANCE - All Statotes:
You may contact the EEOC representative sttown on your Notice if you need help in finding a tawyet or if you have
any questions oo<.>ut yollr legal rights. ~ncl~ding adVice on which U.S. District Court can hear yoor~. If you need
to Itlspect or obtain a copy of information In EEOC's file on the charge, please request it promptly In writing and provide your charge number (as shown on your Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, all
charge files are kept for at least 6 mooths after our last action on the case. -n.erefore. if you file suit and want to
review the charge fi.le. please make youI' review request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before filing suit.. any request shOUld be made within the next 90 days.)
IF You FIL.E SUlT~ PLEASESEND A COpy OF YOUR COURT COMPLAJIITTO THIS OrnCE.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page22 of 68

EP.ARlMENT" OF FAIR EMr&YMENT & HOUSiNG

--

~ADDRESS CHECKED aROW)

•

Chief Execi!t.ive Offic;er"

"1$Cidd, 10(»1 T_W~. $cAe 2$0 ~9330S
I6GII~ZllJ

Leg'aJ. Department:

EEOC Number: 340-2005-02093

B~tetsnt.

Buy.
t RSBC

Retall

Sel:Vice&ase Nan\c;

Chery~ Chappel.

2700 San«~~rs 1320 E. aaw A-.... SdC4 150 Prospect Be"i.ght:s. IL 60070

Oa~:" Aprll 25~ 2005

F---. CA 53710'

l'5sstZ....... , .

NonCE TO COMPlAINANT AND ItESPON~"

tilt w_ sacs.-.. ~ IlS00
a..~01.900'7 a'3I~
1:n.$~~~701
a:,u.I4, CA. ....'2
(S1G11 iII22.~1

This is to advise ~ tIlat the above1e~ compIaiM is being ref«red to
the CaIifomia Depanment of Fait emPIovmen1: ancf HoUsIng (oFGOby die 0_8_
Equal EmpIoymen1: Op~"t;ommissiOn (EEOC).". The ~ witt be "filed
iri accotdance with C8ifomia GOV'emP1eRt Code ~ t 2960. This notice
~es service ~ to G.owrnment Code sectiOn 12962.
~ l'eSp~e to"the 000 is FJ!~ by the respMd!9t~

2000 "'0'" s--. s..<te 120
~CASS814
ronA 44s.sSZ3

The EEOC will be responsible foe the processIng of this f»mplaint. DFEH wilt

nOt be conducting an investigation-Into"ibis mattel". EEOC should be contacted

0·'ditectly"for any. <fsscussion ot"1:he d1ar'ge. OFEH is closing fts case on the basi~

- -Processing w;:iived to aJlQther ~encv.

.

1350 r.-c~"StiCe 300S"

NOTlCE TO COMM.AlNAffl" Of ruGlrt-T9..sue

s..~~ 92101" (61" 64$-2681
t21 _ _ ~~<430 "~nc""" CAS41a.s (415J8CM-2303

Since O~ ~ not be ~A9 an ~tion.. thiS latter is alSo your right-to-wc·: notice..: Accotd"ang to Govemn1e.ntCode s$::tion 12965.. s.ubdivision (b)~ you'
may bring a "civil· actiOq under the proVisions of the Fai( ~'and
Housing Act agains;t the ~ employes-. labor or9~a1jon Of employment ageney Mmed in me above'"l'eferenceC1 compraJru;. The lawsuit inay be filed in a

Sta1;e of CaJi19rnia Superior or Justice CoUrt. Govetnment Code Sectfoa 1.2965.
a subd'.vi$ioo (bJ.. J)l"ovides that :.;UCh civil aclion must·be brought Within one

111 tIadb~&cNat. Suiao 810

year·from the date of this noti~ PurSuant "to GoVernment Code sectioo

SM"JGsor.. CAr. 55113 1408. 277-1277

12965. subdivision (di(l). Ulis ooe-yuw period will be" tolled during the
pelldency of the EEOC!s investiga~on of your compI~ You sboufd consult an

attorney. to deteanil)e W11fl accutacy the date. by wtlktl a ~ ~Ction must" be

2101 Eut~ Su-..SdR:tss..a
m(. $-.a ...... 0. S2)QS S$O-4v.;G

filed. lnis right-to file a civil a~ may be waived In the eveqt a ~erMf1t

agreement is:signed. QuestioM·about the right to file under' ~cm law should

berefe«ed tO "THE EEOC.

.

" ;

The DFEH dOes"not retalO eas~ records beyond 1Iv'ee years after a complaint is

filed.

1

Rem~ber.:· This Right-To-Sue Notice. aUows 'to"i to file a private iawsuit in

I

Star:~ c o u r t . "

'.

\

i

Sincerely~

~
!

OFEH-:ZOO:02 (01/04)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page23 of 68
EXHIBIT C2

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page24 of 68

ClL\RGE OF DISCRIMINATION WIllI is amct8Cl b:, the Privacy ACt o! J974. S~ Privacy Ao\ Statement bcfOft: cornpletlng
onn.

AGENCY
o fEl>A
• ESOC

CHAllOE NUMl36R.

i (llJclfwc Mr., MJ" at .vt'r,I,)

r;A DEPT PAlR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING and EEOC
SIt1r. or /ocalAgenCJI, ifwrY
HOM!! lALliPl«>NE (iat:lada =c:otl!)

:hayl Chappel

n'ADORBSS

arv, STATE AND ZIP CODE

DATeOfmTH

....~ -." _.----'-£"

--

..

lED IS THE EMPLOYER. LABOR ORGANIZATION. EMPLOYM&'l'l' AGENCY, APPRENTICESIllP COMMIT'l':EE, OR STATE OR

:AI. GOVERNM'tNT A.GENCY THAT I BELIEVE DISClUMlNAIED AGAINST ME OR OTHERS. OCl'IlOI'f \11m one, 1i:sL under PARTICULARS

?

NUMlfER, OF BMPLOYM.S, MEMBERS

TI>LEPHO~ Cirrdwk tu«I Mk)

Buy eo,. Inc.

Approx.100,000

(SS8) 831-900~ (Mira Mesa)

Buy Store5, L.ll,

iT ADDRESS I Mira. Mesa. Bly i

crIY, STA1"'R AND 7.W CODE
San Diogo, CA 92126

aOF DlSCRIMDlAT1:1N liASI'D ON (CkckappopnOlc ,,"(c.rl)

. '.

ACE • CC'LOR • SEX DREIJGION o NATIONAL ORIOl'N

o o RBTALlATJON

AGE o DISABILITY o OTHER Cspecf[y)

;,RTICULARS.ARE; (,.,pf/:/irJl»lal sptJctll4 Hgtldlld, DlIaDh IXlNl Jhe!!l($)}:

COtMrY San Djego

D"1E DI!ClUMDZATION roo~ PIACl!

1W!LII.T5T

UrEST

AprJI2003

prtaent

• CONTINUlNG ACTION

lttaohed chMgc.
_.........,: ."
WlIIlt this charge l'ilcd with both the EEOC I1I'Id Ill; Stale: or local Agency, if
will advise 1hs a5.onci~ ifI chango my addrt:ss or telephone nwubcr and
:mIO fUlly with UIcm in the proCCS5in, ofmy charge in accordance with lht:ir
dura.

. .'
."
-"
NOTAR." - (Wb~ no~ary for St&o and Local :Requirements)
I SW$l' or affinn thaI I hllVe ~d the above charKO lind mill it is Lruc
~o the best ofmy knowledGe. informalfO'Q AIld bc1i~,

lire under pCllalty ofperJuzy that the foregojn~ is Lrue: and COmx:f.
~ W~

srGNA.TURS OF COMPLAINANT
~~c/.~

SUBS

AND SWOR.NTOBEP RE:METInSDATE

(Day, month, and year) /0/Jlt//0R

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page25 of 68
L I am an African-American female who filed a class charge of discrimination on April 21., 2005 (No. )05-02093») attached hereto as Exhibit A. I am hereby supplementing that charge on behalfofmyself. Cheryl el, and all others similarly situated to include the allegations set forth herein. Like other female, African-
.~ and Latioo employees at Best Buy, I have been harmed by a continuing pattern and practice or policy of
nination.
n. When I filed a Charge ofDiscrimination on April 21, 2005, I was working at the Best Buy store in Mira
California. as an Administrative Senior. Effective December3l, 2007, I became an Operations Manager. Best IS paid me 1es.'J than white male managers in comparable positions. I have also observed that other female and ty managers are paid less than white male managers in comparable positions.
III. I believe that Best Buy has discriminated against me because ofmy sex, race, andlor color for the fig reasons: I have received less compensation than white male managers with comparable qualifications. I een well qualified for promotion but have been repeatedly passed over in favor ofwhlte males with lesser
mce and abili1ies.
N. I believe that Best Buy has a pattern and practice ofdiscriminating against its African-American, Latino, nale employees in filling major sales, senior, supervisor, and store management positions and by subjecting l-Ameri~ Latino, and female employees to discrimination with respect to hiring~ job assignments, promotions, empt compensation in its stores nationwide. I bring this charge on behalfofmyself and other similarly situated 1 Americans., Latinos, and women who have received disparate treatmen~ been denied equal job assignments, ~nied promotional opportunities. and/or been paid less as a result of their race, color, national origin, and/or sex.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page26 of 68

EEOC FDIITI161.08 (3198)

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)

From;

~i:lln r-ntnG'I~¥o DIl:Jtrlct Oft"lca
350 The Embarcadoro Suite 500 San francisco. CA 94105

D

On behalf of per:sonM aggrieved Whose identity is

CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR 91601.7(8))

EEOC Charge No.

E~OC Representative

Telephone No,

550-2009-00190

Scott H. Doughtie,
Investigator

(415) 625..5663

(See afso the addftional information enclosed with this form.)

NOTICE TO THe PERSON AGGRIEVED:
I Title VU of the eMI Rights Act of 1964 and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Ihis is your Notice of Right to Sue. issued

under Title VII and/or the ADA based on the above-numbered charge. It has been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under TltJe VII or I

the ADA must be flied in a federal or state court WrrHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice: or your right to sue based on this

charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a state claim may be different)

D

More than 160 days have passed since the ruing of this charge.

W ~ than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but 1have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will

be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of this charge.

.

~ The EEOC is terminating its processing Of this charge.

D

The EEQC will continue to process this chiilrge.

I Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed until
90 days iilfter you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. lnthis regard, the paragraph marl<od bolow applies to
o your casu: The EEOC is closing your cese. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN
90 DAYS of your receIpt of this Notice. Otherwise, your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

D

The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However. if 60 days have pa$Sed since the filing of the charge,

yOU may file suit in federal or state court under the ADEA at this time.

equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the nght to sue under the EPA (filing an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought in federal or state court within 2 years (3 yeeT5 for willftjl ViolaUons) of ttJe alleged EPA underpayment This means that backpay due for any Violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.

If you file suit, based on this charge. please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.

Enclosures(s)

ec:

BEST BUY STORES, LP

9540 Mira Mesa Boulevard

San Diego. CA 92154

-cr·P;;;' Michael Baldonado, District Director

(Date Mailed)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page27 of 68

EncImiUIU with EEOC Fonn 161-6 (3198)

INFORMATION RELATED TO FlUNG SUIT
UNDER THE LAws ENFORCED BY rHE EEOC

(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law.
Ifyou also plan to sue claiming violations of state law, please be aware that time limits and other
provisions of state law may be shorter ormore limited than those described be/ow.)

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS

_ TItle VII of the Civil Rights Act. the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA):

In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) narned in the charge n1!h1!l
90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90-
day period is over, your right to sue based on the charge referred to In this Notice will be lost. If you intend to
consult an attorney, you should do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell
him or her the date you received it. Furthermore, in order to avoid any question that you did not act in a timely manner, it is prudent that your suit be filed within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailed to you (as indicated Where the Notice is signed) or the date of the postmark, if later.

Your lawsuit may be filed 'n u.s. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate

state court is the general civil trial court) Whether you file in ~ederal or State court Is a matter for you to decide

after talking to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short

statement of the facts of your case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may include any matter

alleged in the charge or, to the extent pennitted by court decisions, matters like or related to the matters alleged in

the charge. Generally, suits are brought in the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred. but in some cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where the employment would have been, or where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can get answers from the office of the clerk of the court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to write your complaint or make legal strategy deCisions for you.

I
I I

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS

Equal Pay Act (EPA):

I
I

I EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful Violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment: back

pay due for violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 yearsJ before you file suit may not be collectible. For

example, if you were underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 7/1/00 to 1211/00. you should file suit

before 7/1/02 - not 1211/02 - in order to recover unpaid wages due for July 2000. This time limit for filing an EPA

suit is separate from the 90-day filing period under Title VII, the ADA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if

you also plan to sue under Title VII, the ADA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim. suit must be filed

within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year EPA back pay recovery period.

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION ..- Title VII and the ADA:
If you cannot afford or have been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent you, the U,S. District Court having jurisdiction
in your case may. in limited circumstances. assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such assistance must be
made to the U.S. District Court in the form and manner it requires (you should be prepared to explain in detail your efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should be made well before the end of the 90-day period mentioned above. because such requests do not relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days,

ATTORNeY REFERRAL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE - All Statutes:

You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in finding a lawyer or if you have any questions about your legal rights, including advice on which U.S. District Court can hear your case. If you heed to inspect or obtain a copy of information in EEOC's file on the charge, please request it prornptly in writing and provide your charge number (as shown on your Notice), While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time. all charge files are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on the case. Therefore, If you file suit and want to review the charge file, please make your review request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before fding suit, any request should be
made within the next 90 days.)

IF YOU ALE SUIT, PLEASE SEND A COpy OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO THIS oFFICE.

. ~OmA-1RIC""'Cl~l1wiru'llicMClldaAsIIwe>t4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1
tTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
lRE:sS CHECKED BELOW)

Filed01/08/09 Page28 of 68

Date:

December ~ 7, 2008

Case Name:

IBOO SIOCUalD ~wV" liUlIU 21 Y

6lo6~a"rJ'3iDa~J·U.2·CII.I.WOJJ09

EEOC No:

CHERYL CHAPPE~ vs. BEST BUY CO., INC.
550-2009-00190

, .uc..

:120 Ii. IiIlliW AVDlIUU, Sulill 160 1..,.110, CA D:J7ID ~(101 244-'1700

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT

111 Woe, Glxlh SIICUIl, Sullu 1(iOO This is to advise you that the above~rBferenced complaint is being referred to

..(j~ Ano.~, CA DOO1'1

the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing {DFEH} by the U.S,

2.131 4JlI.G709

EQUBI Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), The complaint will be filed

In accordance with California GovernmBnt Code section 12960, This notice

616 Clav BIIODI, sullo 70 I
4kJend. cA 94612. :1010%2·2941

c;oHstltutes service pursuant to Government Code 9Bctioh 12962. No response to tho DFEH· is required by the respondsl1t.

100 "0" StIUI, Gullu 120
,c:I'lImenl1l, CA OliO 14
111)446-6623

Tho EEOC wll/ be responsIble for the procetssing of this complaint, DFEH will not be conducting an investIgation into this matter. EEOC should be oontacted
diractly for any discussion of the charge. DFEH is closing Its cage on 1he bBS!6

----------"
Bo Mont 8/r11al, SullB 3006
~ Dle~ll, CA 92101 191 G~p.28!11

of-processing .walved tD another agency. II
. NOTICE TO COMPlAJNANT OF ~IQHT-TO. -SUE

Since DFEH will not be issuing an accusation, this letter is also your right-to-sue

notioe. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision lb}, you

, Fnnc;m,~ Ol&ulol 0 r1I0e
16 thy SIn'I, Suit. 701 IIInd, CA 94612 0) B22·2im

mav bring H civil action under the provislomi of the Fair Employment and
Housing Act against. the parson, employer, labor organlz.ation or employment agency named In the Bbovtrreferenced complaint. The lawsuit may be flied In a

Stille of Callfomla Super/or or JustlcB Court, Government Code saction 12966,

ro NI1tIhJiW SII'III, Sul1f4BO subdiVision Ib" provides that such a civil action must be brought within on6

,JDID, C\B3131 DI3%S-Oil44

year from the datB of this ootios. Pursuarrt to Government Code sectlon 12965, subdlvislon (dH1 J, this cno:-yeBr period will be tollad during the

pendenoy of the EEOC's Inv8stlgatioll of your complaint. You should consult an

1 EIIal Fuuoh StraHl, Sullo ~1i6-!J attorney to determine with 8GCUrBOY the date by whic::h a civil aation must be

10 Ana, ell 1127D6

flied. This right to file Hcivil action may be waivf'd in the event i.'.I settlement

II 66D-4280

agrsement is signed. Questions about the right to file under federal law shOUld

bB roferred to the EEOC.

.

The DFEH daBS nor retain Gflse.rsl::ords beyond three years after a complaint is flied.

Remember: This A/ght-To-Sue Notice allows you to file a private lawsuit in StatB court.

Sincerely,
/ .'"?rf.' If.· ~_§I;rt /';.;~
t./

, TOTAL P.02

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page29 of 68
EXHIBITD

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page30 of 68
. ,

CIIARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
. -
fonn is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before completing form.

AGENCY
o FEPA
• EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER

E (mcficatc Mr., Ms. or Mrs.)

Brie Blacksher

lET ADDRESS

..

..

CA DEPT FAIREMPWYMENT AND HOUSING and EEOC State iJrloctU Agency. ifany

HOMB TELEPHONE (include area code)
..

CITY, STATE AND ZIP COOS

DATE OF BIRTH

\'lED IS TIlE EMPWYE~ LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY. APPRENTICESHIP COMMlTfEE, OR STATE OR

:AL GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT I BELmVE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME' OR OTHERS. (Ifmore than one, list under PARTICULARS

~

' ..

E

NUMBER OFEMPWYEES, MEMBERS

TELEPHONS (melude 117m axk)

tBuy, InC.

Approx. 100,000

nAJ)DRESS

CITY, SfATE AND ZIP CODE

COUNTY

,

SE OF DISCRIMD'IATION BASED ON (CkcJ: appropriJIe box(es))

tACE • COLOR o SEX o RELIGION o NATIONAL ORIGIN

o o o RETALIATION

AGE o DISABILITY OTHER (specify)

PARTICULARS AR'IH!J114di11a..al spaa i.'! needed. attaclc.atnJ zheet(J»:

ase see attached)

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARliEST

LATEST

November 2005 February 2006

o CONTINUING ACTION

I want this charge filed with both die EEOC and the State or local Ag~cy, if . :NOTARY - (When necessary for Slate and Local Requirements)

[ will advise the agencies if I change my address or telephone number and ..

>erate fully
:edure.

with

them

in

the

processing

of

my

charge

in

accordan.<~ ;e

with
,.

their

I swear or affirm that [ have read the above charge and that it is true
to the best ofmy knowledge, infonnation and belief.

,tare under penalty ofpeIjury that the foregoing is true and correct:

'. SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

Jft1~h

~~~~.e-. Charging Party (signaturt;)

SUBSCRlBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Day, month, and year)

I. I

. ,

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page31 of 68

Cbarge of Discrimination - Eric Blacksher

L

I am African American. Best Buy refused to hire me in or around November

2005. Although I am well qualified, Best Buy denied my application for employment.

I applied to Best Buy on or around November 14,2005 as a student looking for part-time employment. I learned that Best Buy usually hires part-time employees with little or no experience for the holiday season. I completed Best Buyts online application, and listed my retail sales experience at Finish Line and Sears.

I received a prompt and positive response to my application. Within only a few hours, a Best Buy manager called me to ask about my availability to interview. He confirmed that I had the desire and ability to work as a salesperson or cashier, and encol:JIaged me to interview as soon as possible.

About two days later, I attended an in-person interview at the' Best Buy store in or near

Valencia, California. The Best Buy manager conducting the interview could see that I was

black. I explained my employment history and work experience, and expressed my desire to

work in any available sales or cashier position. Although I thought the interview went well. Best

Buy infonned me that I had to interview again. About ten days later, I interviewed with another

manager. He stated that Best Buy had job openings in the Home Theater department and seemed

impressed at my extensive work experience for so young an age. Still, Best Buy asked me to

interview again. I interviewed for a third time about ten days later. I was encouraged because I

interviewed well and have more experience than other part time applicants my age. I did not

think Best Buy would ask me to interview three times unless they were seriously interested in

hiring me.

.

,

I waited for a call from Best Buy. but they never contacted me again and never explained why they refused to offer me a job. ' I called Best Buy repeatedly) but could not get an answer as
to whether or not Best Buy would hire me. I finally called Best Buy several times in late
February 2006 and directly asked whether Best Buy pl8IU1ed to hire me. Best Buy stated that they did :J}ot know and that the Best Buy manager responsible for making this decision was not available. I understood these repeated refusals to mean that Best Buy had no intention ofhiring
me.
While Best Buy refused to hire me, I applied to Vons Grocery and received a job almost
immediately.
II. I believe I have been discriminated against by Best Buy because ofmy race and/or color for the following reason: I was and am well qualified for employment at Best Buy, but was
. passed over in favor of other applicants.
m. I believe that Best Buy has a pattern and.practice of discriminating against African-
American, Latino, and Asian-American job applicants in filling all employment positions, including major sales, senior, supervisor and store management positions. I bring this charge on behalfofmyself and other similarly situated African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans who have been denied employment opportunities as a result of their race and/or color.

515351.1

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page32 of 68

=EOC Fam 18,-8 (3/98)
ro; Eric Blacksher

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)
From: los Angeles District Office - 480 255 E. Temple St. 4th
Los Angeles. CA 90012

'.:.'."'IiJ-,

D

On behalfofperson(s) aggrieved whose identity is

CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601.7(8))

E:EOC Charge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

550-2006-00783

Joyce L. Mills, Investigator

.(213.894-1022

{S~ also the additional information enclosed with this fomr.}

IOllCE TO THE PeRSON AGGRIEVED:

ttle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This iii your Notice of Right to Sue, issued
nder llUe VII and/or the ADA based on the above-numbered charge. It has been issued at your request Your lawsuit under Title VII or
le ADA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this harge will be lost (The time limit for filing suit. based on a state claim may be different.)

D

More than 1gO days have passed since the filing of this charge.

[K]

Less than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but I have determine(i that. it is unlikely that the EEOC will be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of this charge.

EKJ The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.

D

The EEOC will continue to process this chslge•

.ge Discrimination-in Employment Act (AOEA): You may sue under th~ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge wa~ filed until
odays after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the pamgraph marked below applies to
our case:
D . The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this Noth.e, Otherwise. your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

D

The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. HO~tv~~. if 60 days have passed since the filing of the charge,

you may file suit in federal 0; state court under the ADEA at this time.';;

:qual Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue,under the EPA (filing an.EEdC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought
• fed~ral or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violatiOns) ,of the alleged EPA underpaymC3nl This m~ans thatbackpaY,due for
ny violations that occurred more than' 2 years (3 years) before you file sliit may not be collectible.

you file suit, b~sed on this charge, please,send a copy of your court complaint to this office.

On behalf of the Commission

Enclosures(s)
:c: BEST BUY, INC.

aniel H. HutchInson, Esq.
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

. --

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page33 of 68
EXHIBITE

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page34 of 68

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
m is. affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; Sec Privacy Act Statement before completing
n.

AGENCY
o FEPA
• EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER
550-2006-02089

KlicaIe Mr., Mi. or Mr..)

CA QEPT FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING and EEOC State or load AgellC}'. ifany
HOME TELEPHONE (mcludc area code)

sica Treas

,WDRESS

crrY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

DATE OF BIRTH

..

'.,

coMMrI"riE. DIS THE ~YER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENf AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP

OR STATE: OR '

:. GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT I BELIEVE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME OR OTIIERS. (H ilIOl'e than one, list IIIIder PARTICULARS

NUMBER OFEMPLOYEBS. MEMBERS

TELEPHONE {inchuk area COIk}

l1y Stores, L.P.

Approx. 100,000

(510) 420..()323 .

,o.oolUiSS
landela Pkwy.

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
O~and. CA 94608

COUNTY
Alameda

>F DISClUMINATION BASa> o~ (Check appropriaL~ btu(es)}

o 2E • COLOR • SEX

RELIGION • NATIONAL ORIGIN

o o o I RETALIAnON

AGE

DISABIT..ITY OTHER (specify)

.11CULARS ARE (qIlI14ilioMl spo.c.e II ne~ qttac/J. extra shUl(sJ):

: see attacbed)

DATE DTSCRlMINAnON TOOK PLACE

EAR-W!ST

LATEST

July 1999 February 26,2006

o CONTINUING ACTION

RECEIVED
SEP 21 2~O6
EEOC-SFDO'

'ant this charge ftled with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency. if
lill advise the agencies if I change my address or telephone number and lte fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance wilh their
Ire.

,NOTARY • (When necessary for State' and Local Requirements)
.
I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

-e under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

\,~I olP

(l, liMJinv ~

1 ,

Charging Party (signarure)

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT
SUBSCRffiED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (Day. month, and year)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page35 of 68

Charge of Discrim.ination - Jessica 'rreas

I.

I am a Latina female ofMexic~ origin. Iwas hired by Best Buy in July 1999 as

a Customer Service Rep II ("CSRIT,) in the Pinole. California store. During my almost seven-

year tenure with the company as a CSRTI. customer service senior, customer service superviSor.

customer service manager. media supervisor, and administrative senior, I experienced

discrimination in promotion., treatment, and training, and job segregatio:r;l at the Pinole, Pleasant

Hill. Union City, and Emeryville stores. In addition, I was paid less than white and male

employees in comparable positions.

.

When I applied to work at Best Buy's Pinole,. Califo~a. store, I had extensive managerial

~xperience. .During my interview, I expressed my interest in a supervisor position and articulated

my.desire.to become a Best Buy manager. I alSQ stated my interest in sales and mterviewed with

a manager for a sales position. Following my interview, Best.B~y hired me 8tra. C~1UI and

assigned me to' a location off the sales floor.

.

AI:. a CSRII., I took on various duties and remained interested in a promotion to the sales floor. Despite roy expertise in various Best B~y departments., I. felt pressured to remain in
customer service. Best Buy managers never "cross trained" me with experiences on the sales
floor and discouraged me· from transferring to the sales floor.. In contrast, a.est Buy managers frequently spoke with white and male employees about promotions to the sales floor, where they received' higher pay and greater opportunities for promotion. Men who performed as well or less
well than me received such promotions. I noticed that customer service employees were
preQ,ominantly female while sales floor employees were overwhelmingly male. Following
several instances where Best Buy passed me over for white males with lesser or comparable qualifications. Best Buy placed me in customer.service manager positions off of the s8J.es ·floor, . flrst in Pleasant Hill, and subsequently in Best Buy's Pinole, Union City,. and Emer:yville stores.

. When I first transferred to Emeryville in 2004, I was the only feriuile manager in the
entire store. Best Buy did not treat me the same as white and male managers. Best Buy· regulady singled me out for performance issues and focused disproportionately on my
deparbnent's numbers. Best Buy disciplmed me m.ore frequently and for less serioUs offenses th~ white and male employees. Countless times, Best Buy managers ~as.sed, riqfculed, or
as ntherwise commentooupon n:1Y petf9rrn,anpe. !-&d not~nd~and tl'Js criticism, as Iha9.
succesSfully perfonned my job duties and received posItive revieWs customer service
manager. Moreover. my department performed as well or better than other areas of the store, as
measured by Best Buy's national department'rankings.

Best Buy demoted me from manager to a supervisor position in the media department mid
me .replaced· with a white·male manager. The differential treatnient, however, continued even

.after the demotion. Best Buy wrote me up for minor infractions, harassed me, and required that

·mydepartment have higher sales numbers than departments 'supervised by white men. Best Buy

demoted me in June 2005, this time to administrative senior. One each occasion that Best Buy

demoted me) none of the white males who replaced me achieved higher numbers Of.. performed

better than' me. Nonetheless, each white male who su~ed me as manager received .

promotions to the sales floor or segment manager positions. I also witnessed other white males

with comparable or lesser abilities and experience receive promotions.

.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page36 of 68

I applied for and was denied numerous promotions. I regularly sought opportunities to
advance at Best Buy aDd spoke with managers about attaining a sales or inventory manager position. Following'my demotion to administrative senior in 1une 2005, I frequently inquired

about supervisor positions in several stores. I also searched Best Buy's intemaljob opening system (JOS) at least once a month. JOS postings, however, often. did not represent aetua)

"vacancies" because Best nuy often decided who they wanted to hire before posting ort the JOS.

Best Buy often filled positions without posting on the JOS. I.applied an4 interviewed for several

job

openin~

that

Best

Buy

instead

gave
.

to

white

males

with

lesser

o~

c.omparable

qualifications.

·Jjuling my employment~ Best Buy paid me less than white and male employees in comparable positio~. White male saIes m,anagers routineIYi-eceived'~gher pay and·greater

me status. On several occasions, Best Buy did not award me proinised pay raises that it awarded to
white managers. Following·my demotiofiSt Best Buy infonned that I was capped out and refuse.d to grant me a.l1Y raises. lhave also ob'serv.e.;l tbat.~t.1terAsia,n-Ameri~ Alrican-

American, ~tino, and female eIQ.ployees were paid '1e5$ ilian white and male employees in

comparable positions.

.

Throughout my tenme with the· company, Best Buy did not provide me with the same
timely reviews and trainings opportuniti~ it afforded-white male employees. I did not receive
~y reviews during my time as a customer service manager. As a media supervisor,l received
only cursory training. In contrast, white and male employees who began new supervisor assignments received more extensive training that sometimes included moving to another store to
shadow an experienced supervisor.

Best Buy retaliated against me for lodging formal C9mplaints about this discriminatory

treatment. On one occasion, I lodged a complaint with Best Buy's human resources 800 number

after a manager improperly used a store camera to monitor me. Instead of conducting an

investigation, Best Buy's human resourceS·clepartment·~ed the manager. This call resulted in

ntim.~us retaliatory write ups~ Best Buy teiminated me in February 2006 for entering a

standard time editto clock in after a period ofiilness. Best Buy claimed that I improperly altered

.my time s. heet.

I

believe .

that this .

termination

was

:i1i

retaliation

for

my

complaints

an.d

illness.

'. .• \S.., II. I believe I ha¥e ,been dis·criminated against by'Best Buy because of illy race, color,
natk.llal origin. 3J.~or·Sex for. the:ful.iowing.~nstillS:. f.receive.d .diff.ererit treatment 'and fe\vcr . training QPportuniti~ thaitwlllte and IDale w9rkers. While I was well qualified for promotion, I . was repeatedly passed over in favor ofwhites and maleS with lesser experience and abilities. I
have received less compensation than white aDd male employees with lesser qualifications. I
. was terminated in retaliation for my complaints of discriniinatoIy treatment.

ill. I believe that Best Buy has a pattem aDd practice of ~Scriminating against its AsianAmerican, African-American. Latino, and female employees in filling senior. supervisor and
store management positions ~d by subjecting Asian-American, African-American, Latino, and

female employees to discrimination with respect to promotions, training, job arid houTs

assigmnents, and compensation in its stores nationwidEt I bring this charge on behalf 0 f myself and other similarly situat~ Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos, and women who have

received disparate treatment, been dei:ried training opportunities, been denied promotional

opportunities,

andlor

been

paid

less

as

a

result

oftheir

race,

color,

national .

origin,

and./or

s~x.

- <~
~ Form 161-8 (:we)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page37 of 68 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNIlY COMMISSION

0: Jessica Treas

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)

From:

San Francisco District Office ~ 550 350 The Embarcadero Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94105

D
harge No.

bella" On

ofpe~(s) aggrieved whose Identity is

C!J.NFJDENTIAL (29 CFR-§1601.7(a})

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

50~~OO6-(t2089

Scott H. Doughtie, Investigator

(4~5) 625..s663

oncE·TO lHE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

(See aiso the additional informatio/J" enclosee! with this f~nn.)

tie VII ()f the Civil Rights Act of 1984·and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); This is your Noti~ of Right to Sue, issued

lder rille VII and/or the ADA based on the above-numbered charge. It has been issued at your requesl Your lawsuit under TIDe VII or

e ADA must ba flied In federal or stato couJ1W1TH1N 90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice or your right to sue based on this charge

II be lost. (ine time limit for filing suit· based on a state claim may be different)

.-.

o More than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge. -

.[!] Less than 180 days have passed since the filing ofUiis charge. but I have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of the charge.

· 0 ThEd~EOC is tenninating its processing of this charge.
[!:l The EEOC will continue to process this charge.

)e Discrtmlnation in Employment Act- (ADEA): You may s_ue under the AOEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed

to ltil 90 days after you·receive notice that we have rompleted aelion on the charge. In this regard, the paragraph marked below

Jplles your case:

.

o The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS of yOur r.ecelpt of this Notice. Otherwise. your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

D of The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEAcase. However, if 60 days have passed since the filing your charge, -

you may fife suit If! federal or state court under the ADEA at this time.

...

IllarPay~t (E~A)= You alrea~ have the right to sue under the EPA (filing an EEOC charge is nol.required.) EPA suits ·must be brought
~deral or state court within 2 yearS (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpaymenl This means that ~ackPay due for

y vlolatlo~s that occurred more than 2 years.(3 years} before you file suit may not be collootlble.

.

.

'ou file suit based on this charge, please'Send a copy of your court complaint to this office. .

closure(s)

On behalf of the·Commission

~~_._"_-+--,--1z_·__I-"b£~

.L H. Joan Ehrlich, II r District Director

(Date ¥aHed)

Melinda S. Riechert Morgan Lewis 2 Palo. AftoSquare 3000 EI Camino Real, Suite 700
P~o Alto, CA 94306

DaniaI M. Hutchinson
Lieff, Cabraser, H$imann & Bomstein. LLP
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, 30111 Floor
San Francisco. CA 94111

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page38 of 68
Enclosure willl EEOC Fonn 161-8 (3/98)
INFORMATION RELATED TO FlUNG SUIT
UNDER THE LAws ENFORCED BY THE EEOC
(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or state court under Federal/aw. Ifyou also plan to sue claiming violatiqns of State law. please be aware that time"/imits and other
provisions of State law may be shorter or more limited than those described below.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS

,

or the Age Discrimination.in Employment Act (ADEA):

In order to pursue this matter t.urther, you must fife a lawsuit against the respontfent(s) named in the charge within , 90 days of the date y.ou receive this Notice. Therefore; you should 'keep a record of this date. Once this 9O-day
period is over, ·your right to sue based on the charge referred to in this No~ will be fost. If you intend 10 consult an. attorney, you should do so prompUy. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell him ~r her
the date. you received it. Furthel'l1)ore, in order to avoid any question U1at you did not act In a timely manner, it is

prudent that your suit pe filed within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailed to you (as indicated where .the

Notice is signed) or the date of.the postm.ark, if later.
Your Jawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate -State Court is the general CiVil tr-ialcourt.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide . after talking.to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a ·complainf',that contains a short
statement of the facts of your case which shoWs that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may include any matter
alleged in the charge or, to the extentpennitted by court decisions, matters like or related to the matters alleged in

the charge. Generally. suits are brought in the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some cases can be brought where relevant employm~nt records are kept, where the employment woul~ have been, or

where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can get answers from the office

of the clerk of the Court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to writ~ your compl.aint or make

legal strategy decisions·for you.

'

'

PRNAlE SUIT RJGHTS ..- Equal Pay -Act (EPA):

.

EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment:

.backpay due for violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not" be collectible.'

For example, if you were underpaid under the EPA for work performed frf?m 7/1/00 to 1211/00. you should file suit

before 7/1/02 - not 1211/02 - in order to reoover unpaid wages due for July 2000. This time. limit for filing an EPA

suit is separate from the 90wday filing period under Title VII, the ADA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if

yot.! also plan to sue under Title VII, the ADA or the ADEA. in addition to suing on the EPA claim, suit must be filed

within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year EPAbackpay recovery p~riod.

AiTORNEY REPRESENTATION - Title VII and the ADA: . 'If you cannot afford or have been unabfe to obtain a lawyer to represent you, the U~S. D~trict Court having
jurisdiction in your case may, in limited circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for sUc;h assistance must be made to the U.S. D1stricl Court in the form and manner it requires (you should be prepared to
explain.in detail youi' efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should be made well before the end of the 9Q-day
period mentioned above, because such requests do not relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days.

ArrORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC AsSISTANCE - All Statutes:
You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in finding a lawyer or if you have any questions about your legal rights, including advice on which U.S. Disbict Court can hear your case_ If you need
to inspect or obtain a copy of jnformation in EEOC's fiie on the charge, please request it prompUy in writing and
provide your charge number (as shOwn on your Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, ,all
charge files are kept for at'Ieast 6 months after our last action on the case. Therefore, if you file suit and want to review the charge file, please make YO,ur review request with in' 6. months of this Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be made within the next 90 days.)
IF You ALE SUIT. PLEASE SENOrA COpy OF YOUR CO,,!RT COMPLAINT TO THIS OFFICE.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page39 of 68

)ARTM.ENT OF~AIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING

ADDRESS C-HECKED BELO.W)

Date:

_September 26. 2006

C800f 1()()..2320
100, Tow« Way.....SulI.·250 iWecsI"oe;M. CA ~3309 . ·i6611 395-2729

Case Name: JESSICA TREAS vs. BEST BUY STORES, LP
EEOC No: 550-2006-02089

1320 E. shaw A-....... Suite 150
Fnosnco:'CA 93110 C55,. 244-47iO

NO!ICE TO COMPLAINA~ AND RESPONDENT

s..-. 611 WiISI SiXIII

Suite t500

LK~ cA 90017 . .

121lJ 439-6799 .

s..-. ~51_5 Clay

Suit_ 701

o.kIarwf. CA 94612 15101 C22·i~"1 . '.

This.is to advise you_ that the above-'referenced complaint is being referred tQ the Califomia Department .of Fair Employment and Housing {OFEH} by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)~ The c.omplaint will be filed in accordance With Calif<nnta Government Code se¢tiQn 12960_ This notice --co~e$ service p'urjuimt to GCivermnent COde section 12962.
'No response to the OFE'H is required by the respondent9

2000 -0- SUeet. Suite 120 s-.to,..CA ;5814
19161445-5523

1350 Frwot $ - . SuiIa 3005

s;;;..~CA-92101

.

1619f 545-2681

s.... fDndsc9 IlistOO Office
1<j15·~ Stt.-. s..ite 701'
~CA'9Mi12
SlOJ 6l2·2973
111 HcNth M;arket S1red. Suit.. lIl0 >an J(i$e•. CA 95113 COlli 211"277

'101' &sa. FoWlh SIJeei. Suit~ 25S-J)
_JAna. CA 'nos
114) 558-4266

The EEOC wii' be ..esp~ns!bte for' the processing of this complaint. OFEH will .

not be conducting an investigation into this:.plaJ{:er. EEOC should be contacted

-directly for any .discussion of ~e Char~. OF.EH is dosi~g its case on the basis

of· "pro:cessing waived to ano~er.'agencY.-

. .

.....
NOTICE TO COMp~NANT OF RIGHT-TO-SUE

SincepFEH will no~ ~ issuing a~. ac:=~a~ion. this letter is al$o your ',ight-ta-sue notice. According to Gove~nment' ~ode- section 1 ~965. subdivision (bl. you may bring a ciVil a~on under the pl"ovi~ions of the Fair Employment 'and Hou~ing.Act against the person. eJTlproye,.~ labor organitation Qr employmel1t
agenCy named in the abo\le-:referencecrcompiaint.The lawsuit may be filed in a
State .of California Superiof or- justice Court.. Governmer:at Code section 12965. subdivision (b). provides that such a civil action must be b..-ou~ht within one
yea... fcom the dale of this notice. .Pursuant- to Government Code sect,ion 12965, subdivision (c;I)(1). this one-year period.will be tolled during t~e ~ '. pe~e~cy of the EEOC's investigati~n of your'(:omplaiOt. You should c~nsult an· a~~rney to dete'~ine with accuracy the date by which -a civil action must be filed. This right to file:.a civil a~i(jn' may be-waive" in the event a settlement. agree~t. is signe~.-Qoestions about th~ right. to file under feder~1 law should
-be referred to the EEOC..

The OFEH does riot retain c~se records bey()nd t~ree ye_3rs after a complaint is
filed.

Remember: This Right~To9Sue' Notice allows you to file a erivate lawsuit in State cO,urt. ;

Sincerely.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page40 of 68
, EXHIBITF

i;J, v""-"''''_V •• _ ... _ • ~ ..................... _....... . ......... _
Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page41 of 68

r

,J

ClIARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

; (O(l'n is affected-by the Privte)' Aer of 1974; See Pdvncy Act SbkmeIlt before tornpleling form.

AG'f.NCi
o FEPA
• E£OC

CH"RCENU~
.5'i()~ 7.()06- Ol'~ b 5

~ (ioLdblc Mz_ Mr.....-MH.)

CA DEPT EAlREMPLo~ AND ,HQIISING and EEOC

Suw or Wcal.ARmr.v. ifaft.,

-

HOME Tf)..EI'H:,)NE (iDd.vdc. aru ~)

. Lawrence Sanriago. Jr. :

.BET AD01l~S
-.

CII'¥. S1·...TEAND ZIP CODE
. - - :

DA-rE OFBllliU

.ME[) IS TIlE )!MPLOYER, LABOR. ·ORGANlZATION. EMl'J..OYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTlCllSDIP COMMlTTEEt OR StATE OR
lCAJ.. GOVERNMENT AGENCY"IHAT I BELlEVEl>rsClUMINATED AGAINST ME 'OR 0nmRS. (If IIIOR. dwi~_ JisllJlld.er PAR,11C'l1l.AlS

~"'.)

ME

'rJUMB'fR OfEMPt.OYEES; J4EMBBtS

~HClNE (ltdlldc """" ~J

:st·'Bl,lY StoreS. LP-

Approll.l()O.OOO

(408) 919-1591

t££T AI:IDIlESS
65 Almaden Exptcs$way

CIIY. SlATe AND ZIP CODE
San Jo~. CA 95118-2051

COUNTY
Santa Clara

ml& OF DISCltIMlN...TfON BASED 01'1 (Oad.k tlppropri(fle boRelJ'

·RACE • COLOR' DSlPC OREUGION • NATIONAL ORIGIN

o • RETALIA1'ION

AGE o DISABll.lTY o OTHER (specify)

,,_,4, IE r All'f.lCUI..o.R.S IoRI! (If"dtli,/QlIa/ 1PfKr:: ~

4J/IIOFI I#rlJ.l~#r.

'lease see attached)

DAlE DlSOUklNAllON TOOlC I'l..ACE

£ARLJEST

lATEST

July 2003 M~)"5.2006

o CONTINUING ACTION

RE. C. ~"'&~\~ !",1~'#.il f'\.!.Ji o;~A;.''t'~'"'"~"~..l£:.1·
SE? 0 \~; 21J '..hh j
EEOC~SfD'O

I 1want this charge filed with both the EEOC and !he State Of IocaJ Agency. if

ay. 1 will advise the: asencies if [change my address Ol'.lelephone num'ba and

~te fully wilh them In the processing of my charge in accordance ....'i.L:h ~heiT

roce.d.ure..

.

1swear or affirm !hat 1 have re.:Hl.the abo'\.'.~ charge and ttw it is ttuc to the b~t ofmy kno,,!ledge. inf'C!nnation .~\d belief.

SlGNATURE OF COMPLAIN-~

SUBSClUBED AND SWORN TO BEFO~1: ME TillS DATE (Day, month, and year)

)8<15.1

"."

'.

" ..

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page42 of 68

.

.

Charge orDiscr~ation-Lawrence Santiago, .Jr-.

.

.

1. I ani a Latino and ~ian American of Puerto Rican arid}apanese origin. [was

hi~ by Best Buy in July 2003 as a cashier in the Blossom Hill store in San Jo~~ California.

During my tenure With the company> I experienced race.based di~crimi.naritm in prOl)lot1on.

tr~eilt, and training_ In addition, I was paid less·than white employeesin comparable

. positions.

. When I applied to work at Blossom Hill store., I had extensive sUpervisory and

rilan,agerlal experience. Dutitig my initial interviews at Best Buy. I expressed my intere51 ill a

Best n supervisor position.· My reSume detailed my extensive supervisory expetience~ .Followjng my

interview,

Buy offered me a posidon as a Customer Ser\lice Rep C·C~RIr'}. . '

Shortly after.acCepting the CSRll position, I learned that it was little more than t: glorified,
to cashier. Best Buy assigned me a location off the sales floor.

I continued to worlc hard and sought out all available Famotions. While woding as a
CSRlI. I applied for five promotions in 2003. Nonetheless, po eacb occasion. Best Buy denied my application and.didnot even ~t mean interview. .

·BeSt Buy did not·provide with the same training opportunities as ~er employe(~s.

Although it coinnlon practice to train each person staning a supervisor position, Best Buy

managers deni~ or put off my requests for training when 1began ·work as a su,perviSOT. in ~e

appliance department in early 2004. Although I perfoimed well I suspected that·Best·f~uy was

setting me up to fail by plaejng me in this position without notifying me' of the relevant policies,

procedures, standards, and ex~tations. After about six months in this positiOlly Best managers

infonned me thai Best Buy planne4 to demote me and reduce my pay_ I voluntarily ste}Jped .

down_

.

Prom late 2004 through 2006, Best Buy denied my applications for promoti011 and

instead awarded p.ositions to white males with lesser or comparable qualifications. The

managers charged with posting' Best Buy job vacancies and Best ~uy's internal jOQ opening
system (JOS) di4 not adequately infomi me ofjob oj>enin~ at Be$t Buy. ~ therefore tOt)k it upon

'. :·-·llly$elf to initiate my.own searches and tracked down Best Buy jo~ openings by myself dUring
my lunch breaks and off work hours. I successfully identified and'applied for ten positions- I

interviewed for eight of these positions. Best Buy did not promote me ·to. any of these t:,ositions.

White employees in comparable positions'routinely received promotions.

.

. During my employme:nt. Best Buy paid me less than white employees doing the same or
cOIIwarable work. I have also observed that other Asian-American, African-American. and
were Latino employees paid less than white employees in cQm:parable positions. As an ACE
appliance saleSp~on, Best Buy did not give me the payor hours assignments that it PIOmiSed:

I also experienced hostile treatment at Best Buy. My managers and cO-woIkers constantly used racially and sexually derogatory 1anguage_ On one occasion, the Best Buy
operations manager .stated to me that "it looks like you're getting a littkfat. It .must be because
yoo.'re Hawaiian~" Another time, this manager referred to me as a ·'mutt." r witnessed other
Asian-American, African-American, Latino, and female employees receive similar treHment•. ·

S<C829S.1

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page43 of 68
;.

For example, I frequently overheard managers state thaI an African-American woman who was
injured at work. was "full of shit" and faking hei- injury. A r.~es Jrianager at the store. stated
and "that's how them ghetto niggers d1l'it.'S The operations manager often talked about fem:ue
cashiers made comments 'including '100k at her'tits" and "that's a sweet piece of as!." An
upper level store sales and operations, positions' were filled py whites.

Best Buy retaliated against me for lodging formal c,QmplalDts about thls discriminatory

treatment. I called Best Buy~s (888) BEsTBUY num~. contacted h~an resources, aJ)d called

the open line to report discriminatory conduct. Although Best Buy maintains that complaints are

confidential, a manager stated shortly thereafter ~'so I heard you called open line." At a subSequent sales meetingl the general mana~ referred to me and stated '~$O somebody's a c:iy
'baby." FplloWmg Best Buy's, reorganization in May 2006. a Bes~ Buy general manager laid me

of[ .He infonned me that I could only return roBest But if I accepted an $8 pay CuL Most of the

white managers affected by this reorganization were given their equiva1entpositions ~d pay

scales.

. ,

II. 1.believeI ha.ve been distrilnjnD.ted against by Best Buy ,because of my race, color.
and/or national origin{or the following reasons: I received different treatment'an4 fewtir trairung
opportUnities than white workers. While Iwas weU'qualified for promotion. I was repeltedly passed over in favor of whites with lesser e~perience and allilities. I have received less ,compensation than white employees with lesser qualifications.
ill I believe thal: Best Buy has a pattern an4 practice of di&crimiilating againSt.its Asian-
American, African-Am~rican., and Latino employees in filling seniqr, supe.tVisor and store management positions and by s\lbjecting Asian-American, African-American, and LatillO
employees to discrimination With respect to promotions, training, job and hours a5liignnents, and
compensation in irs stores nationwide. I bring this charge on behalf of myself and oCher similarly
situated Asi3J.) ArnericiUls, AfriCan Americans, and Latinos who have received disparate treatment, been denied training opporrunities, been denied promotional opportunities, a£ld/or' been paid less as a result of their race. color, and/or national origin.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page44 of 68

EOC form t61-B (3/96)
'0: lawrence Santiago

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT QpPORTUNIlY COMMISSION

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUE£:? ON REQUEST)

From:

San Francisco District Office - 550 350 The Embarcadero Suite 500 San Francisco. CA 94105

o

On behalf ofPerson{s) aggrieved Whose id6ntity is
CONFIDENTIAL (29-CFR § 1601.7(8))

hargeNo.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

50-2006-01965

Scott H. Doughtie,. . Investigator

, (415) 625-5663

(See a/so the additional information ~nc/osed with this form.)

onCE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

itle VII of the Civil RightS Act of 1964 and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued

lder Trtie VII andlor the ADA based on the abovEHlumbered charge. It h~s been issued at yOur request Your lawsuit under Title VII or

lost e ADA must be flied in federal orstate court WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice or your rightto sue based on this charge

ill be

(The time limit for filing suit based on a state claim may be different.)

,

More than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge.

Less than 100 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but 'l,hage'determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will

be' able to complete its, administrative processing within 180 days from;ih'e filing ofthecharge. " ' --.

•

.: i .~~ :;:!I_,•• " •• ,.

• ,I

The EEOC is terminating its processing of this c h a r g e . ' .-~.

,

, The EEOC will continue to process this charge. ' :.:~" .j

, "

Je Discrimination in Emproyinent Act,(ADEA)= You may'sue,~~d~r fh~;AO~_at any.time from 60 days aft~r the'Cha'lJewas filed
ftil 90 d~ys after you receive notice th~t we have completed action on the charge.· In this regard, the paragraph marked below
to Iplies your case:

· 0 The EEOC Is closjng your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must !la'flled'in federal or ~tate court WITHIN 90 DAYS of your rec~lpt of this NotIce. OtherWise, your right to sue based on U1e above-numbered charge will be lost.

o The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However, if· 60 days have passed since the filing of your charge,

you may file suit In federal or state court under the ADEA at this ,time.':';' .

:

iual PayAct (EPA): You already have'the right to sue u~gerthe EPA (frli~9 a~'E~6c' Charge, is 001 req~ired.) EPA suits mllst ~ brought
'ederal or state court within 2 years (3 years for,willful violations) of the alleged EPA-underpaymenl This means that backp,aydue for y violationsthatoccurred more than 2 years (3 Wars) before you file sOIt-rnay not be collectible.

your 'Ou file suit based on this charge, please send a copy of court complaint to this office.

~Iosu. r, e(s) .

On behalf of the Commission

~ ~ /' / c r .:' .,., _
.//~
JJt, H:Joan Ehriich~ ;.,
_~,.I,' District Director

_ __
- :'

, (Date Mailed)

MeJlndaS. Riecherl Morgan Lewis 2 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
Palo Alto, CA 94306

OanielM. Hutchinson lieff, C8braser. Heimann &:Bemstein, LLP
Embarcadero Center Wost 275 Battery Street. 301h Floor
San Francisco. CA 94111

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page45 of 68
Endosumwith EEOC
FOfflI 1~1-B (3198)
INFORMAllON RELATED TO FILING SUIT
UNDER THE LAws ENFORCED BY THE EEOC
(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law.
Ifyou a/so plan to sue claiming violations of state law, please be aware that time limits and other provisions of state law may be shorter or more./imited than thoSe described below.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Di$abilities Act (ADA),

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS --
or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEAl:

In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s)·named in the charge within

90 days of the date you receive this NotiCe. Therefore, you should ~eep a record of this date. Once this gO-day

period is over. yoUr right to sUe based on the charge refeiTed to in this Notice win be lost. If you intend to consult an

attorney, you should do so prompUy. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell him or her .

the date you received it Furthermore, in order to avoid any question that you did not act in a timely manner, it is

prudent that·your suit be filed within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailed to you (as indicated where the

Notice is sjgned) or the date of the postmark, if later.

.

.

., .You~.·~it-mayJ~e filed in U.S~ !?~ct Court or a State·court of ~petent.jurisdi~ion.(Usu~ny,. th~ ~pproprji\!te

S~te Court is the general civil trial court.l Whether you file in Federal or Stale court is a matter for you to decide
.after talking to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short

statement of the facts of your case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may include any matter

alleged in the charge or, to the extent permitted·by court decisions, matters.like or related to the matters alleged in

the charge. ·Generally, suits are bfought in "the state where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some

cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept. where the employment would have been, or

where the respondent has its main office. If you have ·simple questions. you usually can get answers from the office

of the clerk of the court Where you are bringing suit, but do not expect thatoffice to write your complaint or make

legal strategy decisions for you. .

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS .. Equal Pay Act (EPA): .

EPA suits must be filed in court wHhin 2 years (3 years tor willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment:

from backpay due for violations that occurred more than 2"years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.

For example, if you·were underpaid under the EPA for work perfor:med

7/1/00 to 1211/00. ~u should file $f,dt

before 7/1/02 - not 1211/02 - in order to re-cover unpaid wages due for July 2000. This time limit for filing an EPA

suit is separate from t!:le 9O-day filing pericid under Title VII, the ADA or·the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if

you also·plan to Sue under Title VII, tOe ADA or the ADEA. In addition to suing on the EPA claim, suit must be filed

within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2· or 3-year EPA ba~pay recovery period.

.

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION -.Title VII and the ADA: Ifyou cannot afford or have been unable to obtain a lawyerto represent you, the U.S. District Court having
.;,jornlafctiO"h in ~ur ca~ may. i.mHtili~~oi(CUfPStan~,·aS~ii~~yotJ,~~obt&imnga k,Myer. Re:guesl$.for sUCh .,.
.assistance must be made"to the I).S. District Court in 1he f6nn and·manner.it requires (you should be prepared to explain in detail your efforts to r~tain an attorney). RequestS should be m~de well before the end of the gO-day
period mentioned above, because such requestS do "not relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days.

ArrORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC AsSISTANCE - All Statutes:

You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice.if you need help in finding a lawyer or if you have

.the any questions about your legal rights, including advice on which U.S. District Court can hear your case. If you need
to inspect or obtain a CPpy of information in EEOC's fife on charge. please request it promptly in writing and
provide your charge number (assh~wn on your Notice)•. While EEOC deStroys charge files after a certain time; all

Charge files are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on the case. Therefore. if you file suit and want to

review the cI:large file, please make your review request Within 6 months of this Notice. (Before filing suit, any

request should·be made Within the next 90 daYS.)

..

IF You FILE SUIT, PLEASE SEND A COpy OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO THIS OFRCE.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page46 of 68

)ARTMENT OF·.FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
ADDRESS CHECKED BELOVV)

Date:

September 8, 2009

.-00) Tower Way... S.e·250
~.CA93300 .
. ~1l39·5:27~ .

Case Name: . LAwRENCE sANTIAGO, JR vs.
BEST BUY STORES, LLP •

~~ .

1320 ~ ~~ A¥enue. Suit. 150 Fnsno. CA 931'10 . t559J 244-4760 .

EEOC ~O;' 550-2006-01965
NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT

611 ~. SiX1h S\reM. Suite .1500

.... ~tA·~17

.

,12131 439-6799

15'50ay~ Suit. 701
.~C'A ~&1·~
IS". 'n-~1 _

Thi~. is t() advise you. that the abov~referenced .comJjlaint is being J:eferred tQ
~ Califomia .Depa~ment pf Fair Employment and.Housing IDFEH) by th6. U.S•
Equ;:d Employ~ent Opportunity Commission IEEOC). The complaint·will be filed
in accordanCe with· California Govemment Code· section 12960. This notice
·~ituies service p.ur;;uant to Govem~ent Code section 12962~
No response to t!l! DFt:H is required by: the respo.:went.· '

2000 "0:'" S - . Slite 120 ·~.CA '95814 ISlA 44S-~fi23'
: .ta50 F;iri SVnt.. SuM 3005
sM o.t.go. CA"S210. . '
lil91 1145-2681
Salt frandsco Dimict Off....
lSlS-q.y S ...... Suit.. 701· ~CA94612 ' 151011122-2973
. U, Nvrth ';""SUee!;.SUite 810 SaIl .IGA. CA 9si 13 14011 n]-1277

tl01 &$t. Founh Street. Suite 255-8

~., ' - - CJ\. 92705

.

01., 558-4266

The EEOC Will ,be tespo~.ble ~or the processing of this complaint. DFEH· will

not ~ conducting an inv~1;igation into this:·DJatter. EEOC should be contacted

'directly for any .dj$cu~sion' of the char9~. OF.EH is closi09 its case on th~ basis

,of'-"processi~ waived to another·agenO,.'"

. .

.

... ..

. . ~OTICE TO COMPLA~NANT OF RIGHT-TO-SUE

Since",,~H Will n.~ ~ iSsuing an. a~irtion. this letter is also yo.ur 'right-to-sue notice. According to GovEt~ment Code· sec~ioo 12965, sUbdiVision Ib). you ' . may bring a ~wi. action under the· provi~ons of the Fair Employment ~hd Hou~ing .Act against the person. employer. labor organization Of emploYmeflt
agenCy named'in the above-::referenced·complaint. The lawsuit may' be filed in a State .of Caiifomia SuperiO( or justice Court.. Government Code section 12965, subdivision '(b). r>ravides that such a· civil action must·t>e brought within ~e year from the date of this. n~ce. .PurSuant- to Governm~nt 'Code section
12965. subdivision (4){1).. this one-year period wi. be tolled during the " . . ,penpency of the.EEOC~s investigatiM Qf your·complaint. You should ~nsutt an,
attomey to determine with accuracy, the date by· which a civU action must· be filed. This right to file·a civil action· may be·waived in the event a settlement
agfeement is signe~1. ,.Ouestions about the right. to file under feder~llaw should
be referred to the EEOC_ .

The DFEH does not retain case records beyond threey~ars after a complaint IS
filed .

. RemernbeJ: This Right-To·Sue Notice allows you to file a private lawsuit in
(.,c!State court_· Sincerely, ,l~ ~4' ! ,. ANDA J. KiRB
Chief. Deputy . ector

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page47 of 68
EXHIBITG

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page48 of 68

'Fana 5 (SV:Q
.
. CHARGE OF DIScRIM.INATION

lIIi$ ..... lI dldsdllr"""~IdGl1W4. Sc&eQIDaI·PdwacvM

r

StdermanI8IIdolll'l'~ befDIv~IO"fanR.

Charge Presefrted To:
0 fEPA
[i] EEOC

Agency(.es) ChaIgeNo(S):
.
370-2006-00384

California Deparf!ner!l Of FaJr·Emplo~.& HcHIsln~

and EEOC

... ~ :~1ItsJ

. se..~~lflldy .

. .
. 1·~~I~~Ale-c-JJ Oafeof~

Muembo Mu~
MIhst .

,~S1aeo n·ZFCode

' .

.

. db the ~.1..abCIr ~ EmpIo)ment~.AppeI8cesHp Cocnnllllee. orStale orlocal Gcwemment JIGunqIThat I Believe mInaIed AgahltJ.JC« ~ (1f1JXq 1han1ltO.1at......PAlfflCfJLARS below.)

rr BUY STQRES, LP.

.1 Nas. ~ oaOrM~or·e 1. f'IIOnONiLIltdJdeArllllrCodeJ

~

, atr.SIi!!Ie ~ZP Ode .

Donahu.e Street, Marin City, CA 94965

.

..

.

I I ~~~ ~~~~CMeJ

\dohIos

CIty. a .and 2PCocIe

........TION IJASeO ON (0!ec*....""'l8te rIIoao(es}.)

o lXl RACE D~
:=J o DasAaanv o RETl\Ul.llOrI

sex AGE

O~

N4-oow. 0RJGIf{
OIHER($ped)bIIIow.}

RTlCU.AASARE (IIadrIi60mIIpaperG ~ a/fach ~Ihe«(.n:
attached.
.

DA~~l1ON1'OOI(Pl..ACE

EaoiesI

laI!!St

12..Q2-2005
o CONlHJINGACnOO

.

.
..

-
RECEIVED
DEC 02 2005
E- EO.C-SFDO

-r- s c:hatge fierd YoiIh both I1e EEOC and !tie SIaIe or bc:aI~. i[ Iv.a
~ 8geI1des ill dIange mJ adrRss or phone ~ and'i \IIii1I toqiefate flAy I in lie P~19 ~ my charge in acCordance~ Ihefr pA)CeCbes. ooder penalty of peIjJry that lhe aboIIe is !rUe and (;(J(reQ.
,

Date

Charpng P<JII¥~

NOTARV - WlJeq ~trxSfiW !llldL«:aIAgenc:y~

I SW03f flf affiIm that I have read the above charge and Ibat It is true 10 !he best of my knowledge, InfonnaIion alld be&et.

·SlGHAlUREOF~

-- .

..

SUBSCRtBEO AND SWOON TOBEfORElEn,5 DATE

~~!,.......)

. •
I-
t
:

!
1
i

t

;
i
!-

i

!

!

, L i

l

- -~.:':""

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page49 of 68

STATEMENT

I

I

J

. I,MtJHMJJO MU~ state as·follows:· .

i
I .

L

I ami w. ;'ycip of~ I am. Afiic;mAmeri(;8D.. My Social Securliy IlUDlheI" .

.;. ~y date of-bidli is.! . :'~." ~ I reside at t

.

.

. .94541. My·telephoQe DDmbeds; . .

2.
Myc:nmplaint is agaiosl ~ Buy S~ L.P_("Best Buyj, h~ at 7«tI.pmn
Avame South. RichIi~.Minnesota 5s423. and in'iOtpC)rBted in Minnesota.. 1woike4 at theBes! 'Buylocationat 180 DonabuC S~ M8rin City'. CA 94965. I began my employment WiU1 Best
)my OIl or about.Septembf;ll" 2Q04. My immediate.supervisor is Mike Tanioua.

3.
weeks. ~ is an entity with. IS.or more emplo~ du. ringe3m ofthe la.st 20 calendar

.4.

I

I

. ~.and other African Amerlqm and ~Qemployees. have been subjected .to race-based

I

~D.'hy BesiBuy. including,. among other: things. discrimination with respect to

1

~on and proinotro.ns.. unequaljob assignmen~ unequal training opportonities~ other
teans andcondilioos ofemployment, and a hostile workenvirooment Best Buy maintains a

i
I
i
I

~ empioymem system chat uses sub~e criteria to prefec whites and to ~.~can~mcan ~ ~ employees and aPp1i~ts foreiQplo~ent.

. !!
t

5.
.

.

. R~$s agents, including Mike TanioU3, Dave CI~ Paul M:ulig, Raymond

i
!'

cor _ Go'dbeec,. are responsible fur the discrimiJtation and hostile wode en:vlroninenttO whiM I was
.Suo~• . not talciJig aU reasonable steps to prevent 1he ~on and hostile wad

!: . .
i

enviroolnmt from occurring:

.

I

6.

I

iI .'

Pagel

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page50 of 68
-----

.

i

I

. lb&.atJaJschatpOllWta1iat'~aidothcrRaa1ady.hU11C4 Mdcao.~iOd

J:.aIidc) empIo~ IOCI~. fnr ~1iiCIIL

-

.''''

I ,
I

!

!•!
-!

_ '_ _ ..

• _______

• : _ _ 10,.. _ _ . . : _ -_ _ _ . _ ..... _ _ ~ -...........,;. _ _ ....; • • _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ __

..
1 i{.
I
r I .
i·
1;
,I• i
i
~

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page51 of 68

To: Mu~ Muanza

u.s. EQuAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

N011CE OF RIGHT TO Sue (ISSUED qN REQUEST)

From:

san Fr.mclsco District Offic:e ~ 550
35U The Embarcadero 'SUIt85OD
San FnInc;i$co., CA 94105

··0 On bBhsIId pet$OO(s) aggtlevsd wtIose 1denI1I.yIs CONRDENnAL (29 em§ 1601.7(e))
CtaargeNo.
ScOtt H. Doughtie,.
Investfgator .

Telephone No. (4t!S) 625-$63

NoncelOlHE I'£Rs(;IN AGGRIEvED:

TIle VII Otthe Clvtl RIghts Act of 1964..dlor the Amel'lcals with DisabIlities Act cAoA): This Is ~ Notice of RIgIlt to Sue, issuet1 underTitle VII andforfhe NJA based on the above-nl.ll1bered charge. It ha$ been Issued at your request. Yoor lawsuit underTIlle VII Of IheNJA must be filed In federal or state f:OUrlW£DIN 90 QAYS ofyourlecelpt ofth18 Notice Ill' YOI:IJ" right to sue based on ihis charge will be Jost. (The &ne limit for flling suit based on a state dUn may be dilferent.)

00 '0
o

- More 1han 180 days have passed &lnce the fiIng of this~• .
Less 'Ihan 180 days have passed mce the fling of this d'IaIge. ~ut ihave determlned.1hat it is unlikely that the 'EEOC wII

be able to complete lis admInl8frative processfng wIIin 180 days from the fIIIriQ of1he charge.

.

The EeOC Is tennktatJng its.processIng of this charge.

[!] The EEOC will continue to process this thafge.

at.anY Age DIscrimination In EmpIoywnefrt Act (ADEA): You may sue under the MEA

time from 60 day.s after the chWlil8 was filed

unti 90 days after ~ receive Mtioe that we haw compJefed acliDn Of) Ule cha rge. In this regard. the patagnllph marked befow

o appfie$ to your case: The EEOC Is ClosIng your case. 'Therefore, yo~ lawsuttundar the ADEA mU$l be filed in federal or state court WIllIIN

90 DAYS of your receipt of thls NotIce. otherwise, your right to sue based on the above-numbered cIlaIge wilt ~ lost

o en your 11)8 EEOC is cOntinuing its,handling ofyowADEA case. However, if 50 day$ have passed sinc;e the riling

charge,

you may file d i n federal or &tate ccurt tnIer Ihe AOEA at tills time..

Equal PayAd(EPA): You already have~htto8ue underthe EPA (filing an ~charge is notrequi{Bd.) EPAsults must be brought In federal or state court within 2 y&CQ (3 yeaJS for _ I violatIOns) of the alfeged EPA underpayment This means !hat ~ydue for
any violations that occumld more than 2 years f3 ",p,,} befOre you file suit may not be coIIe(:Uble•.
If )'0'1 file suit baMd on this charge. please ~ a copy of your court comptalnt to this office,

On behalf of1he CommISSion

Endosura(s)

~~~ LA H. Joan Ehrtich. / ' District Director

cc; Metinda: S. RitGhert
Partner
MOJ'g2In. LewIs & 80cIdus UP 2 Palo Alto Square '
3000 EI· Camino Real, Suite 700 Palo Alto, CA 94306

Daniel M. Hutchfnson
LiIIIf, Cabraser. Heimann & Bernstein, UP Embarcadero Cen.., WMt
275 ~tloIy sttaet. 30" Floor .
San FnmcIsco. cA 94111-3339

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page52 of 68

,
INFORMATION RElATED TO flUNG SUIT
U,."ERTHE LAWs ENFORCED BYTHE eeoc
(ThIs informatjon relates to fiTing suit in Federal or StBte court uacterFed8ml law. .
Ifyou also plan to sue claiming vio/afion$ ofSUIte kNI, pleass be awat9 that time Jmlts and other provisions of ~ law may be shorter or mote HmIted than those desctIbed below.)

Tide VII of the Civil Rights Act. the Americans with Qjsabilities Act (ADA), '

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTs or the . . Discriml~atlon In Employment Act (AOEA):

In order 10 pursue tlds matter further. you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named In the ~e wfthln

90 days of the date. you nice/w, this Notiee. 11terefore, you shOufd. keep a rec:ord of this date. Once this' 9O-day

period Is 0Wf. yoorright to sue based on the dle.-gs nWrred to In this Notice wli be lost. Ifyou Intend to consult an

attorney. )'00 shoold do eo promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this ~ and ib;; emreIope. and tell him or her

the date )'OU received It. Furthermore, in order to avoid any question that you did not act In a timely manner. It Is

. prudent that your suH b& filed within 90 days of the date this Notice.was mailed to you (as indicated where the

Notice is signed) or the date of1110 postmarks if rater.

-

VOIr lawsuit maybe filed in U.S. 0fstrIct Court or a State court of COIi'IpeteI'ItjurisdicUon. (Usually•. the apprgpriate

State court Is the general aMI trial cotrt) Whether you file In Federal.or State court is a matfer fOr you to decide

m:e after talking to ygur attorney. 'Fifng this Nodce is not eno1.I{ta. You must file a "ctmpfaint" that contains a short
statement of the facts d)'QUl' case which shows that you entftled to relief. Your suit inay'indude any ~

alleged In the dlarge or. to the extent pennitted by court ,decisions. mattmJ like or refatGtj to the matters aleged in

the charge. Generally., suits are brought In the State where the alleged. unlawfU practice OCQJrred, but In ~

cases can be I:!I'uugll where relevant emplO)fllent record$ ere kept, where the empfoyment:wouJd have been. or

where the respondent has its mairt otfkoe. If yQU have simple questJOOs~ you u&uaJly can get answers from !he office

of the derk of the court where you are bmging suit. but do nol expect that'office to wrfte your compJamt or make

legal strategy decisions for you.

-

PR,tVATE SUIT RJGHTS - Equal Pay Act (EPA):
EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 }"EI8fS for wilful violations) of the alleged a;tA Wlderpayment: backpay dUe for Vioeations that occurred more th!m 2 years L3 ytII'Sl ~fore you file suit maY not be collectible.
For example, if you were underpaid under the EPA for work perfOrmed from 7/1/00 to 1211100, you should file ~uit
before 711~ - not 1211102 - In order to ~ un~ wages due for J~ 2000. This time linit for fillng an EP~
suit is separate from the 9O-day flOng period under TlUe VII, the ADA or the ADEA referred to above. Thefefore. if
you also plan to sue lRIer 11Ue VIJ. !he ADA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA daim. suit must be med
within 90 days of'this'Notice and within the 2- or 3..year EPA backpay recovery period.
ATTORNEY REPREsi:NrAnON - Tille VII and the ADA:
If you cannot afford or have been unabJe to obtain a lawyer to represent YOU. the U.S. District Court having 'jurisdICtion lIj.your case mayi'fri-lImim.d'Ciwmstanc::e5. assist'YQU In obIafnlng a lawyer. ',ReqUests,for sum assJstance.mlist be made to the U.S. District Court In 1he form and manner if requires (you should be prepared to
explain in detail )OW' efforts to retain an attorney). Requests Should be made WfJII before the end of the-oo-day
period mentioned above. b$QtUse such requests do.!!2i relieve yoo of the requlrement.to bring suit wfthi'l 90 days.

ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC AsSISTANCE - A,l1 Statutes:
You may cootact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need IWp in findlng a lawyer or If you have fIllY questions about your legal rights, inclu~ advice on which U.s. DiStrict Court can hear your case: Ifyou neoo
to Inspect-or obtain a copy of information in EEOC'S file on the charge. pleaSe request it promptly In wrlli'ng and provide your charge number (as shown on your, Notice). While EEOC destroys charge flies after a certaln tfme, all
charge files are kept for at least 6 rnontJ:l$ after our last action on the case. Therefore. ifyou file 8u1t and want to review the Gharge filo, ,please make your review request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before filing suit. any
request: should be made Within the next 90 days.)
IF You FILE S~ PLEASE SEND A COPy OF YOUR COURT CoNPLAINr TO THIS 0FFJcE.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page53 of 68

:PARl1\IIENT OF FAIR EMPlOYMENr & HOOSING
EADl>RESS CHECKED BB..OW)

Date:

DecC:mber 2. 2005

1001 T_Way..SC!b-250

Ca$e Name: MUEMBO MUANZA vs. 'BEST BuY STORES, L.P.

BiIbrsIiN. CA 9330e

I6Gn 385-V21t

JmOC No:. 370-2006-00384

I
j

. J

1a2O Eo . .A--. StIiJIr J50
r-"CA 83710
15691 2.44-47tiO

I

I

Nonce TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT

I

6t t West 8IIIdI ~ SUb 11500 lJIII ~ CA 800,1 (2.1~~
. Ut5 Qay ~ &lite 701
enOl o.i:IiIncI, CA M812
1Z2-294-1

This is 10 advise you that the above--referenced cOmplaint is being ·referred 10 . the California Department of fBir EmpIoymeni and' Housiitg IDFEH) by the" U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissien (EEOC). The campI_ will be filed: in accordance with California Government Coda seCtion 12.960.' This notice ~nStitutes. 6efVicG pursuant 10 Govemment.Code secIion 12962.
No response 10 the ilEa. Is required by'the teSlJOlKjent..

2000 T s-.t. SUb 120
~CA.9S8·1• . lin II 445-lill23

The EEO.c mit be. res~nsible for the pr~ng of\his complaint. DFEH will'

not be .conducting an inveStigation into this matter.. ~. should be COI$Icted .

mive,d directly fOf' any discussion of the ch~...ue: OFEH Is·dosing its case on the basis

of ..PI"O~$,ng

to ana1ber agency.",

i. i
t

oweo. • 3&0 frant SIIMt. Su1w 300fi

S.

CA &2101

161!1t 14$-288.

Y ..

Stn fenriS91!!!d!fr;!: 0fffc;I
fS,& OIly SIrMt. Nte 701
o.u.r,.r. t;A tM61 ~

1510U22-2973

11 1 Her1h M..tel Stn:et. ~ 810 81" Jos.. CA,&5h3. 140IQ iIJ-1U1

2101 &5i'Fotr.wth ~ ~ 21i&.:a s.nt. '-- CA 92705
·O.... S6....2K

Nonce.TO COMP~ANT OF RtGHT~TO.:sl)E .

Since DFEH wilt not b.e issuing an accusation. ~ letter is also your right-to-sue

notice. According to. Government Code Section 12965t subdivisiOo (b),. you .
m~y bring a civil action under the pfcmsions of the Fair EMployment and
H~ Act against ttle person; employer. labor organization or employment

i ' iI agenCy named in the abovtH'efetenced complaint. The lawsuit may ~ ·tiled in a.

State of Ca6fomia.Superioi" or Justice Court. Government Code section 12965,·

sulxfwisiofi Cb)~ provide$ that such a Civll.action must be brought within one

.

year from~' date' Qf this notice. PUlsuant to Government-Code section

.

.12965, subdivision (d)(l). this one-year period will be tolled during the

pendency of the EEOC's investigati9n of your complaint.. You Should eonsuft an
attorney to detemune with a~uniCY the date by ~ a civil action m",st be .
.filed.' This right to me a civil action may be wa~ in the uvent a settJeineo

. II

ag~ent is sig!led. QuestiOns about the right to· file under federal law should:

:

be referred to the EEOC,

a The OFEH 'does not r~in case records beyond three years after complaint is .
fired.

Remember. 'This Right-To--Sue Notice allows you to fife a private lawsuit in
State ·court.

Sincerely,
~!~~AJ~,"~R£B 0.
Chief Deputy· . ector

OFEH-20o.p2 (07/O5)

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page54 of 68
EXHIBITH

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page55 of 68
"
370-2006-00416
-:....

Dae- x 0 ............. . D~'"

OMJB.......Q' " _

a . . . _.

......
.' ~.,....'i• •'

RECE'IVED
DEC 07 2005
EE'OC-SFDO

~.........~..........."**........_.....It-

...._..._...
f!I. .

-.-.......s........-r..ft.::ia......._._-..,..... .•.•..,..

;tI. . . 1)

. . . . . . .i D I ;iJit 1..... .

.

..•.. _-

f .-
7- 05
. . . .1 - .,-._

~-'-

_ _~0Il~' . . . . • -
. "

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page56 of 68

Charge of DtsubMuitlOli - ~ "MO" CaDao.an

L I ~ African AJnerican. Best Buy hireAl me QIl OJ:. ~ OCtober 25.2003, and.

assigned m~ to do inventory in the b!!CJc ofthe Marin City. Califomia stoR. Later inmy tenure

'With.the company, I worked on the projeCts ~ and in the mob~ (pho~) and digital imaging

my deparbnents, wbi~ ~.bQtJnniilor sales 4epattmtJIts. &it Buy.paid me less and ~gne4·me
.fewer hours.than white ~oyees in Comp8mble·positions.· 'Since initlal interview with Best

saies Buy. I have repeatedly cixpressed an intere:st in.a sales ~on. AltbolJgh ~ B~y:~ers

.wid me that I am. qualit1~ for a

positi~ Best Buy-~lgn~ me to·invontory, projectS, and

minOr sales departments where I ~ved less pay than Best Buy ~Ioyees in major sales

~.

".

" ". . Best·QuY.hiri:d my as apetinanCm~-tinie 'Worker. b'l;twnmgfully cuissifiedme ~ a
·'~oooiSiomil employee.' This wrongful.clMsification r;tegiItively affec.ted.my,pay .fur months. For cxampl~ priOr to my9O-day reyie.w the ~ons fIL1it1qer told me ~aU deserved.
the highest .-aise posslole. However;When a mariaget evaluated me,' Best :Buy would not grant
me a higher.rai~ becaUSe Be5t Buy wrongly.clBssifiedme'as.a seaoonalfoecasional employee.

nad When I fuSt applied to BestB.uy. I had:tbrec ycHI ofsalcs Cxperi~c; ~luding
e~cs sales•.~ I experience in8;lles anci.·expressed~Y ~ in sales during
Diy iJ:Utial in~ew, BesiBuy placed me·in ~ventory. Best Buy told mc ~ this was the only
PQSition a~te,·bui·:White and Asian-Amcric8D. app~.sW,te4 ~ cOmputcr.S8Ies·~ ·the same time. AS .. erqployec ~ Best Buy'a in~ory ~ I waS intetesIed and aVailable'for traosfer to sales aDd ~y·CX1Jressed to"lllY managers my intdesf in a tnInsfer. When I . expressed my hiterest in sales ·to the.Best Buy general :mana~, ~ m~, sales
any . l'n$Iager~ and supervi~r, 1hey told me that Best Buydidoothaye CJpeI1ings. While Iworked
in invCiltory, hOw~er, BestBuy hired doz~ ofwhite· emPloyees to fill vacancies in sales.
departmetlts.

As an employee in B~t B.uy's mvenlory dcpartmeD~ Best Buy aSsigned me fewer·hours than white cmplo~ in coIDp8l"able positions. BC$t Buy's operati~ ~ager told me ~at Best Buy assignod boms based upon a computer-~.schedUle. However, white employees with
"Wsiemeikli.ir ~vaUability ro'uti. nely received 25-35 hours per lVeek while I. receiv,ed 12-28 hoUrs e8:ch

. Duringrny entire cmploymen~ Best Buy'has paid me less than white employees in ~

comparable.positions. I ha,veJeatned.that white employees with feWer or comp.nmle·

qualificationS were and are receiving higher· pay. In inventory Bnchligital imaging, I trained new
qty white:employees who maae more money than me.. I Qised this iSsue with supervisor who· .

talked with the geneial manager, Raymond GOdbeer. The general manager said, "Do not tallc to

othel" employees ~t your pay.'.'

.

.

.

.

Best Buy gives pay raises based upon yearly customer service evaluations performed by

managers. Best Buy delayed my evaluation for six months. during which time I was "stuc1e' 'at

my old payrilte; I have obaervcd·1hat other .Afiican-American and Latino employees al$o are

paid les.s.imd receive f~er hours than white employees in ~le.positions.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1

17/2005 15:09 FAX 415 956 1008

LIEF CABRAS~

.<

Filed01/08/09 Page57 of 68
_ ~005/005

_ . n.: Ibelievelba\febcen~-~b.y.~Buy_~ofmy~'andJor

.color for 'the fono~~: I Was ~i~tO loWet~~pomti~~ white employees

·with C()DlpmIble q~c:qions. .[~ve_~ less~Oil t;b$l ~.:employees wi9i
comparable qualificatiQnS. I was ..m.at;DweU·:q~ed for 8:'~ to a ~or,~es dcjJu.tnient

}Jut

ha. ve.been

repeate4ly

p8$Sed ovedn,-.favor ,of~tes ,"..

with·~~·~ ' .

abilitieS.

m. I beli~ that BestBUyhas.apattem ~~ pr~ apnst its

AJiican..American and Latino employees ~ filUng ~ sales. ~r,.~ and ~

manageincm positious and by sobje:ctiDg Afticmi-AmeriC8ll'and Latino emplo~ to

discrimination with respect tp ~~lItiaining,job assilPPents.. and ~ in its

stores.nationwide. I.bring thig cbatge on ~mmyself·and other tdmilarly'Situated Atiican

Amerieaos and,LatiDos who havcb=. dCliiedPrOmotional~~ BQd.paid'Iess'as a result

;oftheirrace andIorcolor.

. -

"

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page58 of 68
·W]? u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUHnY COUIllSSlON

To: Maurk:G Cllhoun

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST).

From:

San FranCfseo DistrIct 0flIca - 550 350 The Emban:adero SUite 500
'San Francisco. CA 94105

Charge No.

EEOC Represenlalive

Telephone No. .

370-2006-00416

Scott H. Doag~.
Investigator

(415) 625-5663

.

.

Nones TO DE PI!R.SON~

11tIeVB: ota.. CIYII RIghts Aot of 1984 andlor the AmerIcamI Wfth DisabiI......Act (ADA): This Is your NoUce of RIght to SlIp, issued

under TItle VH and/or the ADA based on the ~ted chetge. It has been Iaeued at your requeSt Yo~lawsult under TiQ~ VII or

twhei.

ADA must...
be lost. (The

filad
lime

In ~ orst:atecourtWlTHIHQP DA'YS ofyour receipt IinI for.fling adl based on Ii state claim may be cfII'fsrept.)

o

f this

Noticeoryourrlghtto

sue

based

on

tis

charge

00' Mole lhan 180 days have ~ since the fling of this chatge•.
o Less.than 180 days have passed slnce 1he filing of this c:harge, but I have det.ermNd that·1t is Wllikely that the EEOC wiD

o as be allis to complete its admlnlstrati'le ~ within 180 days i'om the ~ of the charge. 1ha EEOC IS terminating processing of tills chaltJ8..

.

00 .The EEOC Wll continue to process this cha!ge.

Age DiscrlinlnaQon in Employment Aat (ADEA); You may sue ~'tte ADEJ\ at any ~ from 60 ~ ~ tfie charge was filed

until 90 days after you receive notice !hal we have completed action on the dlarge. In this regard, the paragraph marIaKI b8Iow

o appIkta to)'OUr case:

.

The ~ fa closing yourcase. Therefore, your lawsuit tn1er 1he ADEA must be filed ,In federal or Gtate ~It WITlflN

90 DAYS of)'OU~ receJpt of this Notfee. OtheIwise.)IOlI' right 10 sue based on the above-numOOred charge vAIl be lOst.

o The EEOC Is continuing Its handling of)'DUl' NJ'fA case..tIow8var,lf 60 days have passed since the filing ofyour c:hatge, ~ may file SUIt In federal orstate court under the ADEA at this lime..

.

.

Equal PayAct (EPA): You akuady have·1he rtght10 sue lrIcierthe EPA(fi1b1g an EEOCcharge Is not requfred.) EPAsuitsmustba brought

In.federaI or SIatB wurt within 2 years (3 years for wl1ifui violations) of the aIeged EPA underpayment. This means that backpaydue for

any~olaUons that occurred DtOI! than 2 Years 13 wars) befoN you fir. suit may not be c:oIIectIble.

If you file suit based on this charge, please send a copy Gf your court c:ompJair1t to this 0fII0e.

On behalf of 1118 Commisiion

cc:: Melinda S. Rlechert
Partner MGtgan. lewis & Bockius UP 2 Palo Alto Square
3000 B ~no ReaJ. SUJle 700 P4Io Att.o. CA 94306

DanIel M. Hutchinson UlIff, Cabraser. Holmann &Bernstein, UP
2E7m5bBaa'cbard)e"mStrceeent.tesroWa Resotot
San FrancJaco, CA94111003339

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page59 of 68

INFORMATION RELAiED TO FlUNG SUn
UNDER THE lAWs ENFORCED BYTHE EEOC (1hls /I1fQnnatjon reIstN to tiling suit In FecIeniI or SI&tB court under federal law.
Ifyou also plan to sue claiming vio/atIon.s ofState Jaw, please be aware that ~ IIin/ts and other provisions ofSlate law may be shoder 01' I1JOnJ limited than those cI8sCdbecI below.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Dlsabiflties Act (ADA)..

pawATE SUrr RIGHTs -

.or the Age Discrimination In Employment Act (ADEA):

In order to pursue this matter further, yoo must file a lawsuit agalnst Ihe respondent(s) named In the charge ~ PO days of the date you nK:eIve this Notice. Therefore. you shpuld keep a record of thiS date. Once this 9O-day

period Is over, your·right to sue based on the <:barge refern!d to ... this Notice wit be lost. Hyou intend 10 COflSljt an attorney. you should do ISO prompUy. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice. and its envelope, and tell him or her the·date youreceivod H. Fur1hermoie,1n order to avoid any question that you d"1d not act In a timely manner, It Is

piudent that)'OUr sult be fired within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailedto you (as indJcaIed Wh8nt the

Nob is signed) or the date of the posImartc. If Iater~

.

Your-fawsI.!it may·be lied In U.S. Dislric:t Cpurt or a ~ court of compete~t Jurfsdlctlon. (USuallyl the appropriate

State court IS ~ ~ civI biaI court.) Whether you file i1 Federat or S1ate eourt is a matter for you to decide

after talking to younlltomey. FIling this Notice Is not enougfI. You must file a "Complaint'" that contains a'short

rn statement of 1I1e facts of your case which shoMJ 1hat you are entitled to.reItef. Your sull may.Include any maHer.
, alleged in 8Je charge or, to the extent permitted by court dedsions. matters Rke or related to the matlMl ~
the chaJge. Generally, 'suits are brought n Ihe state Where 1M aUeged unfawful practice ocoorred. but In some

answers cases can·be brought where relevant employment records are kept. where the employmentwouJd have been, or

wh~ Itie respondent has Its main office. If you have slniple question&, you lisOalfy can get

tom 1he office

of !he clerk of the court where you are bringing suit. but do not expect that office. to write your compJalrrt ~ make

legal SIrategy decisions fot you. ,

PRIvATE SUIT RIGHTS ~ EquaJ Pay Act (EPA):

.

EPA suits must be fRed ... court wfthil 2l!88l"$ (3 years forwJlIfuI Violations) Of1he alleged EPA underpayment:

bac;kpay due for vioIatJons 1hat occurTed mont than i yean; 13yei1rs) b4!lfore you file suit may net be coIIecIibIe.

For exampre. if.you were underpaid under the EPA forwerk performed from 711100 to 1211/00, you should fi1e suit .

before 711102 ~ not1211102 - In'order to recover unpald wSges due for July2000; This time linlt fOrfifmg an EPA
suit is separate.from Ihe 9O-day ,sma period under TItle VII. the ~A or the ADEA ~ to above. Therefore. if

or: you Blso pJan to suq onder Tille VII. Ihe ADA or the ADEA, In addition to suing on the EPA darm. sun must be filed
within 90 days oflhiS Notice §!lQ wilhln the 2~ 3¥tar EPA baekpay recovery period.

ATTORNeY REPRESEN1'AnON - Title VII and the ADA: .

maY; If yoU cannot afford or have been unable to obtain.8 ~ to represent you. the U.S. District Court having

jurlsdictiorrln your case

In1mH.8d dtc:un}StanCeS, ~ )"OU.,fn obtaining & f~.. ~Requests-for.stith

assistance must be made to the U.S. DlstriGt Court In the form and manner It requires (you should be prepared to

om explain In detap your efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should be made well before the end mUle 9O-day
period mentioned above. because stich requests do relieve you of the reqlI.trement to bring suit Within 90 days.

A1TORHEY REfERRAL AND EEOC AssISTANCE - All Statutes: You may contact the EEOC representatfve shown On your Notice If you need ~p in fir)dlng a lawyer or if you have any questions about )'D~r legal lights, inclUding advice en which U.S. D~ Cotrt all hear your case. If you need to inSped or obtai1 a copy of information In EEOC's file on the charge. pJease request It prompUy in writing and provide your chaige number (as shown on your NotIce)- Whle EEOC destroys charge tieS after a certain time. all Charge files are kept fur at least 6 months after our last Cldion on the case. Therefore, If you fie suit and want to. review the charge fDe, pktase make your review requeat wi1hIn 6 months o. this Notice. (Before fIi1g suB. ~
~ should be made within the next 90 dayB.)
IF You FIL.E swi PLEAsE SEND A COPY OF YOUR CouRT COIIPL.A1NTTO THIs OfficE.

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page60 of 68

~RTMENT OF FAIR,EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
l,p,DRESS CHECKED BELOW}

100) 70()'2320
1001 Tower Way.. Suite,250 8a1cersfie1d, CA 93309 1681) 396-2129 :
1320 E. Shaw AVBnIe. Suite 150 Frano. CA 93710 1559) 244-4760

Date:

Dece~beJ: 8, 2005

Case Name: MAURICE CALHOUN vs. BEST BUY, INCORPORATED '

EEOC No: '370-2006-00416

NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT

611 West Sbcth Suaat. Suite 1500 Los P.r;geles. CA 90017 (213) 439-6'799
1516 Clay S1raet. SUite1'b,
Oaldand. CA 94612 (5101822-2941 '

!his is to advise you that the above-referenced co~plairtt is being referred to ~~ California Depl;lrtment of Fair Employme~ and Housing (DFEH) by the U.S.

Equal Employment'OpportUnity .commission (EEOC)_ The complaint will be filed

in accordance with California Government Code section 12960. This notice

°co~tutes' .~.

servic~:-ipur.s.u'ar. it.to

Gov.etnment

Code

s.ection

1:~9a2. .

No resPonse to the DFEH is required by the reSPondent.

2000 ·0· Street. Sults 120 $acram8!'1to, CA 95814 '
(916) 445-5523

The EEOC will be responsible for the processing of 'this complaint. DFEH will
not be conducting an investigation into this matter_'EEOC should. be contacted
dir.ectly for any discussion Qf the charge. DFEH is closing its case on the basis of ·processing waived to another agency.~

1350 Front street..~ 3005
San DtBOG.'CA 92101 (61S) 646-2.681
Sao ftilncisco District Offg 1515 Clay SVeet. Suite 101
Oakland, CA 94812 (510) 822·2973
111 North M81ket Street. SUite 810 San-JQ$e. CA 95; 13 (4081 271-127'7
210) East Fourth Street, -Suite 255·8 Silnt~ Ana. CA 92705 17141 558-4266

.

NonCE TO COMPLAINAlt:T Of RIGHT-TO"SUE

Since DFEH will not be issuing an accusation, this letter is also your right·to-~ue

notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b). you

may bring a civil action under the provisions 9f the Fair Employment and

a Housi,ng A,ct'against the person, employer, 'Iabor organization or employment
CI1;Iency named in the above-referenced complaint. The lawsuit may be filed in

State of California Superior or Justice Court. °Government Code section 12965,

subdivision· (b). provides that such a civil action must be brought within one

year from the date of this notice. Pursuant to Government Code section

12965, subdiVision (dHl),_ this one--year period will be tolled during the

pendency of the EEOC's investigation of your complaint. You should consult an

<morney to determine with accuracy the date by which a civjl action must be filed,. This right to file a civil action may b~ waived in the event a settlement
be~greement is signed. Questions about the right to file under federal law should referred to· the EEOC.

The DFEH does not reta!n case records beyond ~hree years after a complaint is

filed.

'

Remember:·' This Right-To-Sue Notice allows you to file a private lawsuit in
State court.

Sincerely,
(~~~/~·
~~AJ. ·RB Chief Deputy - ector

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page61 of 68
EXHIBIT I

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page62 of 68

t:~15~

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATJON

"

lNSto. k~"'''' PdIIacyh;t.d 187.... So:e~PriYac)'M ~aldoft8rloilwilaloll~c:umpteCIQg_fomt. -

~~To:
'0 fEPA
"[XI EEOC

Agency(ies) CIPge No(s): '., 370-.2006-00203

I (ftfdbtItIt'.M&.1b.I

California Department Of fair Employment & Housing

_ _ OI'~~II~_

I~~lh_Ala~ I

andEE.OC .
o.~PkIh

Nicholas .J. Dixon
t~
... '. , ' ., : ..

, ..

--

..
.

CIIy, aate-.:l ZP COde -
'.

.. ,

rr I ,I Ild Is lilt B~.I.abQrOlgailf.tatcx.. ~JI.gency. AppnInIOesIiip ~ or stde or L.ocaI GowmmenI:~ That I BeiaW

mTnaWAoalnstMo,crObn. (If,,*, fllMfwo,. .......P~beIaW.',

".

.

..
BUY STORES. LP.

N'd....~..~ f'kifte .... (td1*Me~

500 or f40fe

:.,' .

-

~

atr. SIaIa...s ~CodIr

.

Donaliue Street, Marin City. CA 94965

.

.

It , ~~~ ~"~,Ma~

f i ,

..

~

""aatealdZIP~

,.

...umoHBASmOH (CINN:If~btp(e4)

.

OexwR o OREUGION I,RACE

sex

o DOISABIUlY o [iJ1SAW.11ON

AGe

OHl\~~'
OIl£R(Sped'yW\lw.)

~ Ails (7f-*lifiotll1l""I$~ lIIt8ch elItr.r aIIeeI(~):
a~-
.
. :

..
.
..

, ,
DATE(S)~l1OHTOQ(PlACE

e.tiI!:&t

laIest

0141-2005
:
,D~~

.
..

..

.

.

.

.

RECEIVED

, ,

j
i
!
:

1

,"

f!

I ,
I
i
I
. !
1
" ,i
r I
Ir:

: NOV 0 1 .

EEOC-SFDO

s~ &ed--'lIoIIlhe EEOC.aI'd lie Stale or1ocaf AQte:ncy.I~. f \WI NOTARY- Mo1JGfI~forSlateandt.ocil~~

1!I~.r ,~myaddmss or phone ~ and 1will cooperate fully

,in lie (Aoct$Sinod ~dIatge In aoeordanc:e with !heir ~

, I swearor\affkln that I tI3're read 'the above charge ~nd Ibat HIs true to

under penalty of pe.jWy!hat tOO above is IJUe and $XlIfeCI.

the best ~ my knowI$dge, Infoonalion am teIef.

'

.f'-'

stGN/I,tmeOF~

0.

~Patty~

.!

~,ANOSWOfIH TO BEfORE MEllUSOAlE ' (tIIOAIh. day. yeat )

=

..

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page63 of 68

.1, NICHOLAS I~ DIXON, state as fullows; '.

"
I.

i.. ,;I
·1 am yeats ofage. i.am Black.' My Social Securitynumber is ~

ofbttthu

' .·Iresideat:·/ . \... , .

telephone ~ is,.

' .:

'

, ..• ·Mydate
~.; MYhome

2.

So.. My compIirlntis ~ B~ Buy·Stores,.W'. rBest Buy")~ headq~f.eLed at 7601 pezin

. Avenue

Riddiel~ Mimiesota-5S423. and inCOlpOI8ti:d 'Di~ I 'WoIked at the Best

- Buy locatiOn at 1.80 ~~ S~ Marin City.. CA 9496~~ I began myemploym~ at nest

JiJurs Malin City store on or about OdOber 2003, and mded my employment w'itii that store on

.~ about Janumy 200S. Myjob classifi~n :was'~. My Jnunediatc supuvisois were

Jani~·Knoblaugh and Tmy MasoD~

)

.

3.
,

. . I have ~ subjected to race.based disp;intetreatmeot by Best Buy, including, among

other tbings~ cJiscrim,irtation with re8pect to OOmpensation, promotions,. tmnsfea;, and the terms of
cOnditi~ns,ofmy.emploYment with Best~. inclilding'. but not limited to.un~ job' '.

.

!
~

assignments, unequal'tnJ.i$g opportunities, 8nd ~ seoionty.

·i

When I was hired at the Marin City sto~ in Oet9ber 2003, I was told that I would be hiced as a "'pennanent part-timd' C!DPI~ ~ instead" was hired only 8$ a "seasonal"· . employee. I received a starting saiaty ofouly $9.50 peehour) Which I am infonntd and believe 'is a'1owec ~ salary than:oon-minority eropfoyees. FtOQl FelJrtuiry Ihrougli A~ of2004, . despite repeated reqUests to: be ma;4e full time or to be trimsfem:d to anotbef poS.ition.'l'waS
tinable,to.obtain atransfer·to a Position on the sales.flOor~ whidl paid,more than my cashier
positio~ despite my positive perfonnanOO w.viem~ .

I did not receive a taise for the' first six mo~ of~y employment despite my Positive
~ce reviews. while I am informed$id ti~ ~ non-minority emploYees, with .

•I·

. equivalentQr lesser perfu~Ce and expentnoo Aid.tOOdve raises. My supervisors neglected to

.perform my pedonnance revi~.in a ~y,fasbj~"thiS ~.me from moving into ~ full':

time position and delayed any chance I had a~ 9btaining a-raise. In March 2004~ afttt six months

on the jOb, and after Iq)~ requests ~ mypart. my hourly wage &ally was iaised only $021
am . per hour. J was told that tbis$O.21.was th~ higbest raise I could receive, while I infomted

Page I

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page64 of 68

STA1'EMENT -

and belieVe that nM-minorily.anptoyees 'With equivalent or lesser pecfunnanCe and experience

.. ~ hug«raises. In·addition. I have fuUrt4 nothing in Best BuYs emplOyee handbook that

discusses tbiS.taiSe "capo" 'I'bree months.later, tb8t raise.was increased by $1 F hour. It was

. 9f1lyill AUgust20M, tea 'IDOIBbs~~ I began Winking, for. Best·Buy. and aft« repeated requests.

Ibat I w8s niQdC a fidl-time emplOyee. .

.

.

FoBOWingmy ~ fOr, a raise, which bep1 in Febmaiy 2004, I WQ retaliated agaimt

. , .formaking those RqUeSts. Beginning ill li'cbrUaI:y 2004~ I was givaa veab{ll wamintp for .

were wearing my'Dairdo~ wbil~'otha:empwJOOS

not wained When wearing their hair in a .

m aimi1ar fashion; I was alsO sh1gI~ out fur verbal disCipline a meeting.withmy supeMson. I

. , . .~ and bCUCVj)dmt thcseincidents'of~1ine ~taciaUymotivated and tbatnon-

minorityemployees were.not ;ml?jec:t to sUch diseipline.

" ,J ~ subj~ to racially dlarged cOmmeOts throughout my cmploym:ent.with Best Buy.
Thronghout my ~oymeat with Best'Buy, I received ~ore.severe.punishmeQts thaJi·non-
minority employeei £0(; similar conduCt. Tbtougb.out my.emplo)'Dlentwith BestBuy. r
perfonned the samewodc·as·other anployet'$ who were paid higher~. than ~ was.

. . In 1~ 2005. ~CIl I ~ to tranSrer betw~ Best Quy stores. I.lost seniority,

tuition ~oe bc::o.efits, vacad.oB time ond otb.~benefits despite my Iil~S assurance tWIt

. ;1 would bt!, able to retain ~ bQi~.' ~ Jamwy 2005, becausC-ofmy~ by~est Buy.

I felt 8W I had 00" ~ice lmt to lea~ 1he Marin CityBest Buy'~re; I fult that I was etTecti~y

discbargcd by Best Uuy. ,

'

•

. . I ani infotmed and belIeve t;hai Best Buy has a nationwide and.company-wide pattern and

pmdiceQfdiSetimin.ation against its :African-American and La#no employees. including
o.f . diSCriininatj~B In hiring. prom.~onS, ~~n and the terms and con.dioo~ employment.,

I am further iDfutmed and 001ieve tim the'discrimination was and is the resuit ofnationwide and

oompany.:~ policies, procedures and ~ces that have,a disparate iiopact OD the lnlsi.s o~

rice. I bring' this cb.arge ~ bdIalfofmyselfand other similarly situated African-Alilericans and

. Latinoa who have been d~ hiring aftd promQtional ()WO~ii~ paid less.. subject to ' ,

cIiffatatiaI &eiplint\ and retaliated ~ as i result ofthea'race.

.

4.

compaI;ly J}uring rity emplOyment atBest Buy. I have repeatedly complaiae<l to

officials

mreg1ahtidninggt"othacd;d>rdeissscimimyinoaotinocne.mDs.e' spite

theSe oompJaints. Best
,.

Buy

officials

haye

done

little ,

or '

5. Best Buy has retaliate<:f agaiil:St me for cOmplaining ~out race-based discrimination.

Page 2

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page65 of 68

.. ~

'. \

6.

, Bat~...... ~hmcoc'~ TaIy"-IDCUJniBowlCs,~

, ' _jldibIc . .tbC!<lia"U";aation.tow!DchIW8S~amlJiK"aottallag~Ra'll'l~

'"

*PI 10 prc:walthis.&s« li'iilmmu1iQm.~

n.rat" Qtr .3/" ",'2005
,"

, ,.3
~ '.-
"

-.- -- ..... ::.-..,

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page66 of 68

To: ~.I. Dixon

.U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUHrrv CoMMISSION
NOTICe OF RIGHT TO SUE. (ISSUED ON REQUEST)
L
From: SIn FranClaco Distdct 0fIic8 .5S0
350 lb. EmbBrcadero
SUIt&500 San FrancJsco. CA 941~

o

~ behalf01 penon(sj ~who8e IrJ8nIlfy Is CONFIDENT1AL (29 CFR§ 1601.7(a)

EEOC~

Scott H. Doughtie. Investiga.tor

Telephone No•.
(415)~

NancI: TOTHE PER80M AGGREVED:

,

'

nile VII ofthe Civil Rights Act Of 1964 andIor the.Alnerlcana with DJs8bllities Act (ADA): This Is )'Our Nob of Right.to SUe. i&sued

underTIlle VU andIortheNJA based DR tfle abcMHI.lmbered charge. Ith8s been tm.ted at your request. YO.... lawaliit under Tille VII or

. Uta ADA must be flied In federal orslate court WITHIN 90 DAYS ofyour receipt ofthis NoUce oryour rigid to sue basedon IhIschalge

~.. be ~ (The tima limit for firll1Q suit based on a state cJalrn may be dIferent.)

[!] More than 100 days Ilave passed since !he filing of this d181ljG.
o Less than 180 days I18'/S passed since the t11ng of tflis dlarge.. but I have determined that it is unlikaly that the EEOC will

,0 be able 10 complet9lts adrninjs1rative processtng within 100 days from the fiBng of the eharge.. The EEOC Is tennfnating its pmc:essI'ng of this charge.

,

00 The EEOC wiiI oonifnue to process this charge.

Age Disc:Itminatlon in Employment Act (ADEA): You may.sue under the N>EA at any time rrom 60 ~ after the charge was filed until 90 days after you f8CeIive notice thai we flave completed adlon on the driIrg'e. In this regard, thO pai'agraph malked ~
o appRe~ to )'OUr i:a&e: 1'he EEOC is dosing your case. TherBfole. yo~ lawsUit under the MEA mu.t be filed In federator stale court mIHlN JQ DAYS of your receIpC Of this Notice. OtheiwIse, your light 10 sue based on the .aboveonumbered charge 'WiD be lost
o The I;EOC Is continuing its handing of your ADEA case. However. If 00 days have passed since ~ filing of your clJarge. you me)' file sult In federal or state court under the ADEA at tfjs trme. .

Equal Paykt (EPA):' You alreadyhave the right 10 s~ underlhe EPA'(fillna an EEOC charge Is notrequired.) EPAsuifs~be broUght
In ~ or state court wfthrtl2 yearn (3 years forwllful YioIationslof1he aDeged EPAUi"lderpe)'ment. This In9C(IOS that. backp;Iy duefor anyyt~ tfIaI: occumld mom tIIM 2 years (3 )lHlJl bet'ont you til. suit may not be collecUbJo. '

If you fils suit based on this chafge, please send a COf1i ofyoUr court GOI11Plaint 10 tI1is office.

EncIosure(s)

On behalf of the CommissIon
.
~,g:~
...LA H. Joan Elvllch~
, T - District Dlreetor

cc: Melinda S. Riechert
Partner Morgan. Lewis & Boddus UP
2 Palo Alto Square
3000 EI Camino Real, Suite 7tlO Palo Alto. CA 94306

banlel M. Hutchlnsoq
Ueff. Cabraser. HoJrnann & Bernstein.lLP Embarcadero Center West
275 ~ry Street,. 30'" Roor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page67 of 68

~v.llaEEOO Form 161-8 (3N8)
INFORMAlION Ra.ATED TO FlUNG SUIT
UNDER THE LAws .ENfORCED.BYTHE EEOC (This infomJatioo rvIatps to IiIIng Suit In Fedenil or State couIf under Federallilw. Ifyou also plan to sue cJaim1ng violations ofStaffJ Jaw. please be aware that time JltniI3 8(J(/ other
provfSIons 01State law may be shod.er or more limited than those desctfbed below.)

Tdle VII oftile CMt RIghts Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),

PRIvATE SUIT RIGHTS -

or the Age DIscrIm~allon In Employment Act (ADEA):

In order to pursue thls matter further. you must file a Iaw8uH again$t the respondent(s) named,In the charge wtthI!!.

90 daYs of the data you receive Ib_ 'Notice. Therefore.)'OU should keep a raoord of this date. Once thl$ 9O-day

period Is over, your right to sue based on the charge referJvd to in this Notice wli be lost. Ifyou fntend to consult an

atIomey. you should do so prompUy. Give Y'Jl.Ir attorneya WIlY of this Notice. and Hs enveiq>e. and leJl.hIm or her

the date )UI received It Furthermore, In order to avoid any question that)'OlJ cId not act in a timely manner, it Is

prudent that yow suit be filed within ,90 days of the date this Notice was malled to you (as indicated Whese the

Notice is s.lgned) or Ihe date of the postmark. if rater.

'

file Yw-1aWsu1t may be fifed in U,~. Distlict Court 01 a State court Of competent jwisdi;tlon. ~. the appmpdate
S1ate court is !he general civil trial coun) Whether you rn Federal or state court.is a m8tter for you to decide

after taIkbg to your aUomey. Filing INs Notice Is not enot.VI- You must tie a -complaint'" that contains a short .

statement of the fads of ~ case Which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may include My matter

alleged In the charge or, to the extent permiltod by court decisions. matters like or related to the matters alleged In

U1e charge. Generally. suits are bt"ought in the State where the aHeged unlawful practice occimed. but In some

cases can be brought......nere relevant employment records are kept, where the employment would ~ been. or

Where the respondent has lis main office. If you halIe sfmple quesDons. you ·usually can get 8nSWEQ from the office

of the clerk of the court where you are bringing euit, but do not expect that office to write your complailt or make

legal strategy decisions for you.

PRIVATE.SUIT RIGHTS - Equal Pay Act (EPA):
EPA suits must be filed In court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the aUege<! EPA underpayment: backpay due for violations "that occurred more than 2 y'uq.f3 mrs) before you file suit may not be coUeetfbJe. F.or exampfe, ;r you were Wlderpald under Ihe EPA for work' performed from 7/1/00 to 1211100. )'OU should file suit
before 7/1/1J2. - not 1211102 - in Older to recover unpatd wages due for July 2000. il1ia tim6 hifor fillng an EPA
suit Is s·eparate from the 9O-day filing periOd l.Ilder Titie VII. the ADA or the ADEA referred to above. lherefore. if you also plan to sue under TiUe VI~ the ADA or the AOEA. in addiUon to su~g on the EPA claim. suit must be filed
within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3..year EPA baCkpay reco~ period. .

ArroRNEY REPREsENTATION -llUe VII and the ADA: If you cannot afford or I)ave been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent you. the U.S. Disbict Court having juriSdk:tton in )QJt case may~-irJ.11in1ted draJmstances. assi!rt you irr-obtaining a lawyer. Requests for stich assistance must be made to the U.S. District (:ourt: In the form and manner It requires (you should·be prepared to explain In detaI your efforts to retain an ~). Requests should be made well before U1e end of the 9O-day
period. mentioned above, because sudl mquests do IS relieve you of tho requirement to brtlg suit Withil90 d8)l1.

ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC AsSISTANCE - All Statutes: You may eonlact the EEOC representatfve shown on your Notioe if you need help In finding a lawyer or If you have any questioos about your legal rights. including advice on which U.S. District Court can hear your case. If you need
to inspect or obtain a c;opy of information in EEOC's file on the charge. please request it prompUy in writing and provkia you- charge number (as shoNn on your Notice). While EEOC destroys dlasge fiJes after a certain time, all charge files are kept for at least 8 montll$ after our last action on the case. Therefom. If you file suit and want to revioIN the charge file. please make your review request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before firmg suit, any request sflOOld be made within the next 90 days.)
IF YOU FiLE SUIT, PLEASE SENoA COPY OF YOUR COliRT COMPLAINT TO THIs OFFICE

Case4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document144-1 Filed01/08/09 Page68 of 68

..

BBOC ~: 370-2006~002Q3 ,

. .'

: :IIlCBOI .AS J .. ~ oIXOiJ v..

--

,BEST ~ ftORES.L·..P ..

•

.' .

e'

: ~ 10,2005 :.- .

.af0TICE TO COMPlAINANT AND-RESPONDENT

Thkls 1B advise ~.1;hattha ~ ~ being ref~tQ
U. CaMomia ~ G( feir'~ Ifftd' Houslng (OFaQ'bV 1M U.s..'

J

£quill EmPIoyp1ant 0pp0r1Iinity Commission.(E£QCl. The ~ wm be filed

'.

In aCConIance With CaIifomra, Government Code sKtIoQ 12980. ThiS notice
~ ceiviC(t ~.to ~Code,sbction 12962.

-
N9 ~ase:to. thi!t QFEH·1s m~"by the. mpandeJii:.

...
as.,. I~ Q· ·Tt ....A .... Suite 120 .
D~
. '..

The l$ric willa. rfiPOItsibIe.for th8 ~ Qf.~ complaint.. DAEH will

of.,.. hOt.~ ~an kNestifJdtlOn Into ~..matteF.' EEoc ~d. be cOntaGtlld

directlY. ftI(. •~

charv~. DFEIf IS dosing its ,ea$8 on the hasis

. Qf-.~ waiWd tD an.other agenCy.- - . ,

. ,

"

.

~

- - tlO"QCE TO COMPlAINANT OF RlGI:fT..Tf)..$UE

, Sfnc;e DREJ-t will, not'be issuing an a~1l# lhis'lettur' is, alsG your dght-tO-sue

,
fo'!chm prrtrJc;tOfftq
15 ta.t--'" ....101
",U'N~M:tJn"2

.'d!J ~ notic~ e. Ac:a:c' co:rMdiIn~ & t9'Ge~ViHrI)riUle\&l)t'pCroocVteisi$o8nes'l~ionth'1e29F6ai5r.ESmubPdloivyimsiOennt(ibm)d. ,~ =~U::~~;QY:;':=~-'=:=In{ll r
State of ~ SsJpurior or .Justice Cowt... Gc:r/emg1ent Coda section 12965#f .j

, .'

. , . sWdMsl~n fbJ.. provicies that cuch is civil 8Ctien ~ be brougtJt wIthtO ooe

~ ~~.~. .'. .1. .3. . .

-.

U.

110 ,_

.

.

y~O65w'f:r.om$Utbhdeiv.Isl.ano(df1)Jl11lS).n'thotfsic.eon. Q1-'.lyiersaur a~Q~t,o't9dGWoivltebmemtoennef:dCdoudreinSlf,81Ch'eIion

~ of 1he EEOC's:inVestigation of ~ complaint.. You,~ ~-an'
attOnleY tg·detenriina with accuracy ,the date by which a' dViI actioo· mUst be

I.tatF-'lt ~ &tfIa2i5-8 filed. This Ifght fa file is civil action may be waived ..., the eveRt iI &etdeineilt

~::,':"2lO5

agreement ls·sI'gned. Questions about.the rigllt to rlla: under fedQnd taw z;hoUfd

be re~ to tf1e EEOC_

.

• The'QFEH does not ro~ caso records beyond thtee ye-.s-:ifte,- a complaint is

fUed.

"

tmmembec" This Right-To=SUe Notice allows you to file a. wiv!te lawsuit in

SDteCo, u.ft.

.

i ~:

Sincerely.,

.

~~~·I:---
~~AJ. RB',·

~ ..

. Chie1. DeilUtY '"ector

 
 1 Roman M. Silberfeld, RMSilberfeld@rkmc.com (#62783) Lisa L. Heller, LLHeller@rkmc.com (#126086)
2 David Martinez, DMartinez@rkmc.com (#193183) Hernaldo J. Baltodano, HJBaltodano@rkmc.com (222286)
3 Benjamin M. Weiss, BMWeiss@rkmc.com (#223163) Sarinya Kaewdaunglek, SKaewdaunglek@rkmc.com(#233637)
4 Vincent S. Loh, VSLoh@rkmc.com (#238410) Rebecka M. Biejo, RMBiejo@rkmc.com (#240504)
5 ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700
6 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3211 Telephone: (310) 552-0130
7 Facsimile: (310) 229-5800

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 George A. Stohner, GStohner@morganlewis.com (#214508) Melinda S. Riechert, MRiechert@morganlewis.com (#65504)
9 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 Grand South Avenue, Suite 2200
10 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 612-1015
11 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501

12 Attorneys for Defendant, BEST BUY STORES, L.P.
13 (erroneously sued as BEST BUY CO., INC.)

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17

18 JASMEN HOLLOWAY, AMY GARCIA, CHERYL CHAPPEL, ERIC
19 BLACKSHER, JESSICA TREAS, LAWRENCE SANTIAGO, JR.,
20 MUEMBO MUANZA, MAURICE CALHOUN, NICHOLAS DIXON and
21 SUSAN MYERS-SNYDER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
22 Plaintiffs,
23 v.
24 BEST BUY CO., INC., and BEST BUY
25 STORES, L.P.

26

Defendant.

Case No. C 05-05056 PJH (MEJ)
[Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton]
DEFENDANTS BEST BUY CO., INC.’ AND BEST BUY STORES, L.P.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Action filed: December 8, 2005

27

28

LA 60200831.1

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

In response to the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on file herein, defendants Best

2 Buy Co., Inc. and Best Buy Stores, L.P. (collectively “Best Buy”)1 hereby answer, aver and plead

3 as follows:

4

INTRODUCTION

5

1. Answering Paragraph 1 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it is a

6 national retail electronics seller that provides technology products to its customers. Except as so

7 admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

2. Answering Paragraph 2 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

9 contained in said paragraph.

10

3. Answering Paragraph 3 of the SAC, Best Buy denies the allegations contained

11 therein.

12

4. Answering Paragraph 4 of the SAC, Best Buy denies the allegations contained

13 therein.

14

5. Answering Paragraph 5 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it promotes

15 many managers from within the company. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and

16 every allegation contained in said paragraph.

17

6. Answering Paragraph 6 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that this case is brought as a

18 purported class action. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are

19 suitable for class treatment under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further

20 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

21

7. Answering Paragraph 7 of the SAC, Best Buy denies all allegations of

22 discriminatory practices or policies and all claims for relief, including back pay, front pay,

23 punitive damages, injunctive relief and/or rightful place relief. Therefore, Best Buy denies each

24 and every allegation in Paragraph 7 of the SAC.

25

1 Best Buy Co., Inc. avers that it is an improper Defendant and should be dismissed. Based

26

on a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, and except where otherwise specifically

noted, Best Buy Co., Inc. avers, pleads and answers jointly with Best Buy Stores, L.P. See

27

Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P.’s (erroneously sued as Best Buy Co., Inc.) Amended

Certification of Interested Entities or Persons. 28

LA 60200831.1

- 1 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

2

8. Answering Paragraph 8 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs have stated

3 claims or are otherwise entitled to relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

4 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et. seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and/or the California Fair Employment & Housing

5 Act, Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained in

6 said paragraph.

7

9. Answering Paragraph 9 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that venue is proper in this

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 district, per the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(3) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Best Buy

9 further denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are suitable for class treatment under Rule 23 of the

10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or that Best Buy engaged in any wrongful conduct. Best

11 Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained in said paragraph.

12

10. Answering Paragraph 10 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that, based on the

13 allegations in the SAC, intra-district assignment is proper in the San Francisco/Oakland Division.

14 Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

15

PARTIES

16

11. Answering Paragraph 11 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Jasmen

17 Holloway is an African-American female who was employed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. from

18 January 2001 to September 2005. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to

19 form a belief as to the truth of Ms. Holloway’s allegation that she resided in Vallejo, California.

20 Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

21

12. Answering Paragraph 12 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Amy Garcia is

22 a female who was employed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. from August 2001 to October 2006. Best

23 Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Ms. Garcia’s

24 allegation that she resides in Chico, California. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and

25 every allegation contained in said paragraph.

26

13. Answering Paragraph 13 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Cheryl

27 Chappel is an African-American female who resides in Chula Vista, California and has been

28

LA 60200831.1

- 2 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 employed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. since July 2001. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each

2 and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

3

14. Answering Paragraph 14 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Eric Blacksher

4 is an African-American male who applied to Best Buy Stores, L.P.’s Santa Clarita store in

5 November 2005. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in

6 said paragraph.

7

15. Answering Paragraph 15 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Jessica Treas

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 is a Latina female who was employed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. from July 1999 to February 2006,

9 during which time she worked at its Pleasant Hill, Pinole, Union City, and Emeryville stores.

10 Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Ms.

11 Treas’s allegation that she resides in Richmond, California. Except as so admitted, Best Buy

12 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

13

16. Answering Paragraph 16 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Lawrence

14 Santiago, Jr. is a Latino male who was employed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. from July 2003 to May

15 2006 at its Blossom Hill store. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

16 belief as to the truth of Mr. Santiago’s allegation that he resided in San Jose, California. Except

17 as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

18

17. Answering Paragraph 17 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Muembo

19 Muanza is an African-American male who was employed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. from

20 September 2004 to June 2006. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

21 belief as to the truth of Mr. Muanza’s allegation that he resides in Hercules, California. Except as

22 so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

23

18. Answering Paragraph 18 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Maurice

24 Calhoun is an African-American male who was employed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. from October

25 2003 through April, 2007. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

26 belief as to the truth of Mr. Calhoun’s allegation that he resides in Oakland, California. Except as

27 so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

28 / / /

LA 60200831.1

- 3 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

19. Answering Paragraph 19 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Nicholas

2 Dixon is an African-American male who was employed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. from October

3 2003 to June 2005. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to

4 the truth of Mr. Dixon’s allegation that he resides in Oakland, California. Except as so averred,

5 Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

6

20. Answering Paragraph 20 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Susan Myers-

7 Snyder is a female who applied to Best Buy Stores, L.P.’s Palm Desert store in July 2005. Best

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Ms. Myers-

9 Snyder’s allegation that she resides in Palm Springs, California. Except as so admitted, Best Buy

10 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

11

21. Answering Paragraph 21 of the SAC, Best Buy Co., Inc. admits it is a Minnesota

12 corporation. Except as so admitted, Best Buy Co., Inc. denied each every allegation contained in

13 said paragraph.

14

22. Answering Paragraph 22 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it owns

15 and operates retail stores in California and throughout the United States. Except as so admitted,

16 Best Buy Stores, L.P. denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

17

23. Answering Paragraph 23 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits the allegations

18 contained therein.

19

ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE OR POLICY

20

24. Answering Paragraph 24 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

21 contained therein.

22

25. Answering Paragraph 25 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

23 contained therein.

24

26. Answering Paragraph 26 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

25 contained therein.

26

27. Answering Paragraph 27 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

27 contained therein.

28

LA 60200831.1

- 4 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

28. Answering Paragraph 28 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

2 contained therein.

3

29. Answering Paragraph 29 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it employs

4 several job classifications. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

5 contained in said paragraph.

6

30. Answering Paragraph 30 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it employs

7 several job classifications. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 contained therein.

9

31. Answering Paragraph 31 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that major

10 electronic sales represent a significant proportion of Best Buy’s business. Except as so admitted,

11 Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

12

32. Answering Paragraph 32 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

13 contained therein.

14

33. Answering Paragraph 33 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

15 contained therein.

16

34. Answering Paragraph 34 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

17 contained therein.

18

35. Answering Paragraph 35 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

19 contained therein.

20

36. Answering Paragraph 36 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

21 contained therein.

22

37. Answering Paragraph 37 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

23 contained therein.

24

38. Answering Paragraph 38 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

25 contained therein.

26

39. Answering Paragraph 39 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

27 contained therein.

28

LA 60200831.1

- 5 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

40. Answering Paragraph 40 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

2 contained therein.

3

41. Answering Paragraph 41 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it has a

4 bonus program for employment referrals. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every

5 allegation contained in said paragraph.

6

42. Answering Paragraph 42 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it uses tests

7 in certain facets of employment. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 allegation contained in said paragraph.

9

43. Answering Paragraph 43 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it uses an

10 internal Job Opening System (“JOS”). Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every

11 allegation contained in said paragraph.

12

44. Answering Paragraph 44 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

13 contained therein.

14

45. Answering Paragraph 45 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

15 contained in said paragraph.

16

46. Answering Paragraph 46 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

17 contained in said paragraph.

18

CLAIMS OF ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS

19 Jasmen Holloway

20

47. Answering Paragraph 47 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. affirmatively avers

21 that Ms. Holloway was employed at the Marin City Best Buy store from January 2001 until

22 September 2005. Best Buy denies that Ms. Holloway was employed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Best

23 Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained therein.

24

48. Answering Paragraph 48 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Ms. Holloway accepted

25 a position at Best Buy Stores, L.P. as part time customer service specialist / cashier. Except as so

26 admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

27

49. Answering Paragraph 49 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

28 contained therein.

LA 60200831.1

- 6 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

50. Answering Paragraph 50 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

2 contained therein.

3

51. Answering Paragraph 51 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

4

A. Best Buy admits that Ms. Holloway has complained about lack of

5

coaching.

6

B. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

7

to the truth of the following allegations:

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

1. Whether a senior position in the Wireless Department opened up on

9

or about February 2005 and/or whether Ms. Holloway was

10

informed that she was eligible and should apply for said position;

11

2. Whether the position thereafter became unavailable; and/or

12

3. Whether the position was listed on JOS and/or given to a Caucasian

13

employee.

14

C. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

15

in said paragraph.

16

52. Answering Paragraph 52 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Ms. Holloway applied

17 and was interviewed for a full-time Operations Senior position in August 2005. Best Buy

18 affirmatively avers that Ms. Holloway withdrew her application for promotion to this position

19 during and/or immediately after her interview. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and

20 every allegation contained in said paragraph.

21

53. Answering Paragraph 53 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

22

A. Best Buy admits that Ms. Holloway was not employed in any Car Audio

23

Supervisor, Appliance Sales Representative, and/or Administrative

24

Corporate positions in or around September 2004, April 2005 and August

25

2005, respectively.

26

B. Best Buy denies that Ms. Holloway sought promotion to any Appliance

27

Sales representative position in or around April 2005.

28

LA 60200831.1

- 7 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

1

2

3

4

5

6

54.

7 therein.

8

55.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

56.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LA 60200831.1

C. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Ms. Holloway’s allegations that she sought promotions to Car Audio Supervisor and Administrative Corporate positions.
D. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained within said paragraph.
Answering Paragraph 54, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained
Answering Paragraph 55 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows: A. Best Buy admits that Ms. Holloway did not receive a raise in March 2005. B. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as
to the truth of the following allegations: 1. Whether Ms. Holloway requested a pay increase in March 2005;
and/or 2. Whether Ms. Holloway was informed that she had reached her
maximum salary cap. C. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained
in said paragraph. Answering Paragraph 56 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows: A. Best Buy admits that Ms. Holloway was not promoted in August 2005 and
affirmatively avers that Ms. Holloway withdrew her application for promotion to this position during and/or immediately after her interview. B. Best Buy admits that Ms. Holloway is no longer employed with Best Buy Stores, L.P. C. Best Buy admits that, on May 17, 2005, Ms. Holloway lodged a complaint through Best Buy Stores, L.P.’s “Open Line” alleging employee harassment.

- 8 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

D. Best Buy admits that, on June 4, 2005, Ms. Holloway lodged two

2

complaints through Best Buy Stores, L.P.’s “Open Line,” one alleging race

3

discrimination and the other alleging gender discrimination.

4

E. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

5

to the truth of Ms. Holloway’s allegation that she filed a formal

6

discrimination complaint with Best Buy Stores, L.P.’s Human Resources

7

department in April 2005 and/or any discrimination complaint in August

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

2005.

9

F. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

10

in said paragraph.

11

57. Answering Paragraph 57 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

12 contained therein.

13

58. Answering Paragraph 58 of the SAC, Best Buy admits the allegations contained

14 therein.

15 Amy Garcia

16

59. Answering Paragraph 59 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Ms. Garcia was

17 employed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained in said

18 paragraph.

19

60. Answering Paragraph 60 of the SAC, Best Buy avers that it is without sufficient

20 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Ms. Garcia’s allegation that she

21 repeatedly expressed interest in a promotion to a manager position. Except as so averred, Best

22 Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

23

61. Answering Paragraph 61 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

24

A. Best Buy admits that Ms. Garcia was not promoted to Product Process

25

Manager in January 2005.

26

B. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

27

to the truth of Ms. Garcia’s allegation that she stated in early January 2005

28

that she wanted to apply for a Product Process Manager position.

LA 60200831.1

- 9 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

C. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

2

in said paragraph.

3

62. Answering Paragraph 62 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

4 contained therein.

5

63. Answering Paragraph 63 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

6 contained therein.

7

64. Answering Paragraph 64 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 contained therein.

9

65. Answering Paragraph 65 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

10 contained therein.

11

66. Answering Paragraph 66 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Ms. Garcia filed a

12 charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about October 6, 2005. According to Exhibit B to

13 the SAC, Ms. Garcia signed her charge on September 17, 2005, which was received on October

14 14, 2005. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained in said paragraph.

15 Cheryl Chappel

16

67. Answering Paragraph 67 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Ms. Chappel was

17 employed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained therein.

18

68. Answering Paragraph 68 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

19

A. Best Buy admits that Ms. Chappel applied for the job of Operations

20

Supervisor at the Chico Store in July 2003.

21

B. Best Buy admits that Ms. Chappel had prior experience in the Operations

22

Department.

23

C. Best Buy affirmatively avers that Ms. Chappel was not promoted to

24

Operations Supervisor in July, 2003, but denies that said decision was in

25

any way wrongful, illegal and/or discriminatory in any manner.

26

D. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

27

in said paragraph.

28

69. Answering Paragraph 69 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

LA 60200831.1

- 10 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

A. Best Buy denies that Ms. Chappel applied for a supervisor position in

2

September 2004.

3

B. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

4

to the truth of Ms. Chappel’s allegation that she learned that a supervisor

5

position was available in September 2004 at the Best Buy retail store in

6

Mira Mesa, California.

7

C. Best Buy admits that Ms. Chappel was not promoted to a supervisor

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

position in September 2004, but denies that said decision was in any way

9

wrongful, illegal and/or discriminatory in any manner; further, Best Buy

10

affirmatively avers that the position was given to a female and a male.

11

D. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

12

in said paragraph.

13

70. Answering Paragraph 70 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

14 contained therein.

15

71. Answering Paragraph 71 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

16 contained therein.

17

72. Answering Paragraph 72 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Ms. Chappel filed a

18 charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about April 1, 2005. According to Exhibit C to the

19 SAC, Ms. Chappel signed her charge on March 21, 2005, which was received on April 21, 2005.

20 Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained in said paragraph.

21 Eric Blacksher

22

73. Answering Paragraph 73 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

23

A. Best Buy admits that Plaintiff Eric Blacksher is an African-American male.

24

B. Best Buy affirmatively avers that Mr. Blacksher applied to work at the Best

25

Buy Stores, L.P.’s Santa Clarita store in November 2005, and was

26

subsequently interviewed.

27

28

LA 60200831.1

- 11 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

C. Best Buy affirmatively avers that Mr. Blacksher represented in his

2

employment application that he only had cashier and customer service

3

experience from working at Six Flags in California.

4

D. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

5

contained in said paragraph.

6

74. Answering Paragraph 74 of the SAC, Best Buy Best Buy avers as follows:

7

A. Best Buy admits that Mr. Blacksher submitted an on-line application for a

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

position at the Best Buy Stores, L.P.’s Santa Clarita store. Best Buy

9

affirmatively avers that Mr. Blacksher took and passed Best Buy’s pre-

10

hiring assessment.

11

B. Best Buy affirmatively avers that Mr. Blacksher subsequently participated

12

in two in-person interviews.

13

C. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

14

to the truth of Mr. Blacksher’s allegations that he was informed that the

15

store had job openings, that he has not been contacted regarding his

16

application, or that he has been refused any open position.

17

D. Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it did not employ Mr. Blacksher.

18

E. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

19

in said paragraph.

20

75. Answering Paragraph 75 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

21 contained therein.

22

76. Answering Paragraph 76 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Mr. Blacksher filed a

23 charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about April 11, 2006. According to Exhibit D to

24 the SAC, Mr. Blacksher signed his charge on March 27, 2006. Best Buy otherwise admits the

25 allegations contained in said paragraph.

26 Jessica Treas

27

77. Answering Paragraph 77 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Ms. Treas worked at

28 Best Buy Stores, L.P. as a customer service senior. Best Buy denies that Ms. Treas was

LA 60200831.1

- 12 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 employed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained in said

2 paragraph.

3

78. Answering Paragraph 78 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

4

A. Best Buy admits that Ms. Treas stated in her employment application that

5

she had worked in assistant manager positions.

6

B. Best Buy admits that Ms. Treas accepted a job offer for the position of

7

CSR II (operations service specialist II).

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

C. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

9

contained in said paragraph.

10

79. Answering Paragraph 79 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Ms. Treas was

11 promoted to customer service manager (operations manager) at the Pleasant Hill store, and then

12 transferred as customer service manager (operations manager) to the Pinole, Union City, and

13 Emeryville stores. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

14 therein.

15

80. Answering Paragraph 80 of the SAC, Best Buy affirmatively avers that Ms. Treas

16 voluntarily stepped down from manager to supervisor, and from supervisor to senior. Best Buy

17 admits that Ms. Treas was replaced by white male employees on the two occasions on which she

18 voluntarily stepped down. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

19 contained in said paragraph.

20

81. Answering Paragraph 81 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

21 contained therein.

22

82. Answering Paragraph 82 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

23 contained therein.

24

83. Answering Paragraph 83 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Ms. Treas asserted

25 complaints, but denies that said complaints alleged any discrimination. Except as otherwise

26 averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

27

84. Answering Paragraph 84 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

28 contained therein.

LA 60200831.1

- 13 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

85. Answering Paragraph 85 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Ms. Treas filed a

2 charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about September 15, 2006. According to Exhibit E

3 to the SAC, Ms. Treas signed her charge on September 13, 2006, which was received on

4 September 21, 2006. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained in said paragraph.

5 Lawrence Santiago

6

86. Answering Paragraph 86 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Mr. Santiago was

7 employed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained therein.

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

87. Answering Paragraph 87 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

9

A. Best Buy admits that Mr. Santiago stated in his employment application

10

that he had worked as a slot supervisor at Atlantis Hotel and Casino for six

11

months and at Fitzgerald’s Hotel and Casino for an unknown period

12

between May 2000 and August 2002.

13

B. Best Buy admits that Mr. Santiago accepted a job offer at Best Buy Stores,

14

L.P. for the position of operations service specialist II.

15

C. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

16

contained in said paragraph.

17

88. Answering Paragraph 88 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

18 contained therein.

19

89. Answering Paragraph 89 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

20

A. Best Buy is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as

21

to the truth of the following allegations:

22

1. Whether Mr. Santiago submitted five applications for promotion in

23

2003 and was denied either interviews and/or promotions to those

24

positions for which he allegedly applied; and/or

25

2. Whether Mr. Santiago applied for ten positions from late 2004

26

through 2006 and was denied promotions to any of these positions

27

for which he allegedly applied.

28

LA 60200831.1

- 14 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

B. Best Buy Stores, L.P. affirmatively avers that Mr. Santiago was promoted

2

to Appliance Supervisor in April 2004 and to Appliance Pro in June 2005.

3

C. Except as otherwise averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

4

contained in said paragraph.

5

90. Answering Paragraph 90 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

6 contained therein.

7

91. Answering Paragraph 91 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 contained therein.

9

92. Answering Paragraph 92 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

10 contained therein.

11

93. Answering Paragraph 93 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

12

A. Best Buy admits that on December 22, 2004, Mr. Santiago lodged a

13

complaint alleging race discrimination.

14

B. Best Buy admits that on April 25, 2006, Mr. Santiago lodged a complaint

15

regarding the elimination of his position.

16

C. Best Buy admits that on May 15, 2006, Mr. Santiago lodged a complaint

17

regarding the delivery of his severance package.

18

D. Best Buy affirmatively avers that it maintains a confidential internal

19

reporting and complaint system called The Open Line.

20

E. Except as otherwise averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

21

contained in said paragraph.

22

94. Answering Paragraph 94 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

23 contained therein.

24

95. Answering Paragraph 95 of the SAC, Best Buy admits the allegations contained

25 therein.

26 Muembo Muanza

27

96. Answering Paragraph 96 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Mr. Muanza was

28 employed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained therein.

LA 60200831.1

- 15 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

97. Answering Paragraph 97 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

2

A. Best Buy admits that Mr. Muanza represented in his job application that he

3

worked in sales and inventory at The Good Guys from September 1999

4

through February 2001.

5

B. Best Buy admits that Mr. Muanza represented in his job application that he

6

worked in lumber sales at Home Depot from May 2002 through September

7

2003.

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

C. Best Buy admits that Mr. Muanza accepted a position at Best Buy as a

9

Product Processing Specialist.

10

D. Best Buy admits that, as of February, 2006, three out of eighteen

11

employees in the Product Processing department were Caucasian.

12

E. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

13

to the truth of Mr. Muanza’s allegation that he was informed that there

14

were no sales openings.

15

F. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

16

in said paragraph.

17

98. Answering Paragraph 98 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

18 contained therein.

19

99. Answering Paragraph 99 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Mr. Muanza worked in

20 the positions of part-time merchandising specialist and part-time inventory specialist during his

21 employment with Best Buy Stores, L.P. Best Buy avers that Mr. Muanza was offered a full time

22 position but declined it. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

23 contained in said paragraph.

24

100. Answering Paragraph 100 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

25 contained therein.

26

101. Answering Paragraph 101 of the SAC, Best Buy admits the allegations contained

27 therein.

28 / / /

LA 60200831.1

- 16 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 Maurice Calhoun

2

102. Answering Paragraph 102 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Mr. Calhoun was

3 employed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained therein.

4

103. Answering Paragraph 103 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

5

A. Best Buy admits that Mr. Calhoun stated in his employment application

6

that he: (1) held a sales/customer service job at D.S. Max from June, 2003

7

through September, 2003; (2) held a delivery, customer service and sales

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

job at Conway Western Express from September 2000 through April 2002;

9

and (3) held a loading job at UPS from June 1999 through October 2000.

10

B. Best Buy admits that Mr. Calhoun accepted a position in Best Buy Stores,

11

L.P.’s Inventory Department.

12

C. Best Buy admits that Mr. Calhoun expressed an interest in sales, as well as

13

in a driver/delivery position.

14

D. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

15

in said paragraph.

16

104. Answering Paragraph 104 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Mr. Calhoun

17 expressed an interest in sales, but is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief

18 as to whether Mr. Calhoun expressed his interest repeatedly. Best Buy is without sufficient

19 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Mr. Calhoun’s allegations about what

20 he allegedly witnessed and/or that he was repeatedly informed that there were no openings for

21 transfer to sales. Therefore, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said

22 paragraph.

23

105. Answering Paragraph 105 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

24 contained therein.

25

106. Answering Paragraph 106 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

26

A. Best Buy admits that Mr. Calhoun was assigned to the position of project

27

team specialist.

28

LA 60200831.1

- 17 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

B. Best Buy admits that Mr. Calhoun requested and was given a transfer to the

2

Digital Imaging Department where he sold cameras, and that his pay did

3

not increase upon transfer.

4

C. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

5

to the truth of Mr. Calhoun’s allegation that his evaluation was delayed.

6

D. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

7

in said paragraph.

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

107. Answering Paragraph 107 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

9 contained therein.

10

108. Answering Paragraph 108 of the SAC, Best Buy admits the allegations contained

11 therein.

12 Nicholas Dixon

13

109. Answering Paragraph 109 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Mr. Dixon was

14 employed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Best Buy otherwise admits the allegations contained therein.

15

110. Answering Paragraph 110 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

16

A. Best Buy admits that Mr. Dixon represented in his employment application

17

that he had three months of experience at WorldCom, including some

18

experience in cellular sales.

19

B. Best Buy admits that Mr. Dixon’s position was not on the sales floor.

20

C. Best Buy admits that Mr. Dixon was offered a part time position but was

21

mistakenly classified as occasional/seasonal during a three month period,

22

after which time he was classified as permanent. Best Buy denies that Mr.

23

Dixon was paid less as a result of his classification as occasional/seasonal

24

and/or that said misclassification was in any way intentional and/or

25

discriminatory.

26

D. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

27

in said paragraph.

28 / / /

LA 60200831.1

- 18 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

111. Answering Paragraph 111 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

2

A Best Buy admits that Mr. Dixon received some positive evaluations and

3

affirmatively avers that Mr. Dixon also received several negative

4

evaluations.

5

B. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

6

to the truth of Mr. Dixon’s allegation that he was awarded store MVP.

7

C. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

in said paragraph.

9

112. Answering Paragraph 112 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

10

A. Best Buy affirmatively avers that Mr. Dixon accepted a permanent position

11

at Best Buy Stores, L.P. within three months of initial employment.

12

B. Best Buy affirmatively avers that in June 2004 Mr. Dixon applied and

13

interviewed for a full-time operations position, to which he was

14

subsequently promoted.

15

C. Best Buy is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

16

to the truth of Mr. Dixon’s allegations that he applied for promotion to the

17

digital imaging and wireless specialist positions in early 2004.

18

D. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

19

within said paragraph.

20

113. Answering Paragraph 113 of the SAC, Best Buy avers as follows:

21

A. Best Buy admits that cashiers are encouraged to sell merchandise to

22

customers.

23

B. Best Buy admits that Mr. Dixon’s development plan included the training

24

of other employees.

25

C. Except as so averred, Best Buy denies each and every allegation contained

26

in said paragraph.

27

114. Answering Paragraph 114 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

28 contained therein.

LA 60200831.1

- 19 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

115. Answering Paragraph 115 of the SAC, Best Buy admits the allegations contained

2 therein.

3 Susan Myers-Snyder

4

116. Answering Paragraph 116 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Susan Myers-Snyder

5 is a female who applied to Best Buy Stores, L.P.’s Palm Desert store. Except as so admitted, Best

6 Buy denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

7

117. Answering Paragraph 117 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that Ms. Myers-Snyder

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 represented in her application that she possessed 16 years of experience at Circuit City. Best Buy

9 is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Ms. Myers-

10 Snyder’s allegation that she was recommended to Best Buy for employment. Best Buy avers that

11 Ms. Myers-Snyder passed Best Buy’s pre-hiring assessment. Except as so averred, Best Buy

12 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

13

118. Answering Paragraph 118 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

14 contained in said paragraph.

15

119. Answering Paragraph 119 of the SAC, Best Buy admits the allegations contained

16 in said paragraph.

17

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

18

120. Answering Paragraph 120 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that this case is brought as

19 a purported class action. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are

20 suitable for class treatment under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further

21 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

22

121. Answering Paragraph 121 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that this case is brought as

23 a purported class action and that Plaintiffs have brought their claims on a class basis. Except as

24 so admitted, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are suitable for class treatment under

25 Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further denies each and every allegation

26 contained in said paragraph.

27

122. Answering Paragraph 122 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

28 contained therein.

LA 60200831.1

- 20 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

123. Answering Paragraph 123 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

2 contained therein.

3

124. Answering Paragraph 124 of the SAC, Best Buy Stores, L.P. admits that it

4 employed approximately 128,000 employees in approximately 742 stores in 2006. Except as so

5 admitted, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are suitable for class treatment under Rule

6 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further denies each and every allegation contained

7 in said paragraph.

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

125. Answering Paragraph 125 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

9 contained therein.

10

126. Answering Paragraph 126 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

11 contained therein.

12

127. Answering Paragraph 127 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

13 contained therein.

14

128. Answering Paragraph 128 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

15 contained therein.

16

129. Answering Paragraph 129 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

17 contained therein.

18

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

(Race, Color and/or National Origin Discrimination)

20

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.)

21

130. Answering Paragraph 130 of the SAC, Best Buy incorporates its denials as

22 asserted in Paragraphs 1-129 above as though fully set forth herein.

23

131. Answering Paragraph 131 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that this case is brought as

24 a purported class action. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are

25 suitable for class treatment under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further

26 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

27

132. Answering Paragraph 132 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

28 contained therein.

LA 60200831.1

- 21 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

133. Answering Paragraph 133 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

2 contained therein.

3

134. Answering Paragraph 134 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

4 contained therein.

5

135. Answering Paragraph 135 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

6 contained therein.

7

136. Answering Paragraph 136 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 to the relief requested or any relief.

9

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

(Race, Color, and/or National Origin Discrimination)

11

(42 U.S.C. § 1981)

12

137. Answering Paragraph 137 of the SAC, Best Buy incorporates its denials as

13 asserted in Paragraphs 1-136 above as though fully set forth herein.

14

138. Answering Paragraph 138 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that this case is brought as

15 a purported class action. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are

16 suitable for class treatment under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further

17 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

18

139. Answering Paragraph 139 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

19 contained in said paragraph.

20

140. Answering Paragraph 140 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

21 contained in said paragraph.

22

141. Answering Paragraph 141 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

23 to the relief requested or any relief.

24

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

25

(Race, Color, and/or National Origin Discrimination)

26

(Fair Employment & Housing Act, Cal. Govt. Code § 12940 et seq.)

27

142. Answering Paragraph 142 of the SAC, Best Buy incorporates its denials as

28 asserted in Paragraphs 1-141 above as though fully set forth herein.

LA 60200831.1

- 22 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

143. Answering Paragraph 143 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that this case is brought as

2 a purported class action. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are

3 suitable for class treatment under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further

4 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

5

144. Answering Paragraph 144 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

6 contained therein.

7

145. Answering Paragraph 145 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 contained therein.

9

146. Answering Paragraph 146 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

10 contained therein.

11

147. Answering Paragraph 147 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

12 contained therein.

13

148. Answering Paragraph 148 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

14 to the relief requested or any relief.

15

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

16

(Gender Discrimination)

17

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.)

18

149. Answering Paragraph 149 of the SAC, Best Buy incorporates its denials as

19 asserted in Paragraphs 1-148 above as though fully set forth herein.

20

150. Answering Paragraph 150 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that this case is brought as

21 a purported class action. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are

22 suitable for class treatment under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further

23 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

24

151. Answering Paragraph 151 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

25 contained therein.

26

152. Answering Paragraph 152 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

27 contained therein.

28

LA 60200831.1

- 23 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

153. Answering Paragraph 153 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

2 contained therein.

3

154. Answering Paragraph 154 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

4 contained therein.

5

155. Answering Paragraph 155 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

6 to the relief requested or any relief.

7

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

(Gender Discrimination)

9

(Fair Employment & Housing Act, Cal. Govt. Code § 12940 et seq.)

10

156. Answering Paragraph 156 of the SAC, Best Buy incorporates its denials as

11 asserted in Paragraphs 1-155 above as though fully set forth herein.

12

157. Answering Paragraph 157 of the SAC, Best Buy admits that this case is brought as

13 a purported class action. Except as so admitted, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ allegations are

14 suitable for class treatment under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and further

15 denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

16

158. Answering Paragraph 158 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

17 contained therein.

18

159. Answering Paragraph 159 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

19 contained therein.

20

160. Answering Paragraph 160 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

21 contained therein.

22

161. Answering Paragraph 161 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

23 contained therein.

24

162. Answering Paragraph 162 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

25 to the relief requested or any relief.

26

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF

27

163. Answering Paragraph 163 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

28 contained therein.

LA 60200831.1

- 24 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

164. Answering Paragraph 164 of the SAC, Best Buy denies each and every allegation

2 contained therein.

3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

4

165. Answering Paragraph 165 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

5 to the relief requested or any relief.

6

166. Answering Paragraph 166 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

7 to the relief requested or any relief.

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

167. Answering Paragraph 167 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

9 to the relief requested or any relief.

10

168. Answering Paragraph 168 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

11 to the relief requested or any relief.

12

169. Answering Paragraph 169 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

13 to the relief requested or any relief.

14

170. Answering Paragraph 170 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

15 to the relief requested or any relief.

16

171. Answering Paragraph 171 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

17 to the relief requested or any relief.

18

172. Answering Paragraph 172 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

19 to the relief requested or any relief.

20

173. Answering Paragraph 173 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

21 to the relief requested or any relief.

22

174. Answering Paragraph 174 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

23 to the relief requested or any relief.

24

175. Answering Paragraph 175 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

25 to the relief requested or any relief.

26

176. Answering Paragraph 176 of the SAC, Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs are entitled

27 to the relief requested or any relief.

28

LA 60200831.1

- 25 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

177. Except as to matters herein expressly admitted, Best Buy denies each and every

2 allegation of the SAC.

3

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4

Best Buy asserts the following affirmative defenses:

5

1. The SAC, and each claim set forth therein, fails to state a claim against Best Buy

6 upon which relief can be granted.

7

2. This action cannot proceed as a class action because the allegations in the SAC are

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 not suitable for class adjudication.

9

3. The SAC, and each claim set forth therein, is barred in whole or in part by the

10 applicable statutes of limitations.

11

4. The SAC, and each cause of action set forth therein, is barred in whole or in part

12 by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies in a timely manner.

13

5. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover punitive damages because Best Buy has made

14 a good faith effort to comply with all applicable anti-discrimination laws and, at all relevant

15 times, Best Buy has acted reasonably, in good faith and without malice based upon all relevant

16 information and relevant facts and circumstances known by Best Buy at the time it acted.

17

6. All managerial actions were undertaken and exercised with good cause, and for

18 proper, lawful business reasons and necessity, which were not a pretext for discrimination.

19

7. All of Best Buy’s employment decisions were based on bona fide factors other

20 than gender, race, color and/or national origin, including, but not limited to, a bona fide merit

21 system.

22

8. If Plaintiffs suffered any damages, which Best Buy disputes, such damages were

23 proximately or legally caused by the misconduct, neglect and fault of Plaintiffs and/or parties

24 other than Best Buy.

25

9. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any punitive damages because: (1) Plaintiffs

26 failed to plead facts sufficient to support the recovery of punitive damages; and (2) Best Buy

27 committed no act justifying an award of punitive damages.

28

LA 60200831.1

- 26 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

10. The SAC, and each cause of action asserted therein, is barred in whole or in part

2 because Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective

3 opportunities provided by Best Buy, or to otherwise avoid harm.

4

11. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because, should any allegations of unlawful conduct

5 contained in the SAC are found to have merit (which Best Buy denies), Best Buy affirms that it

6 took prompt and effective action to remedy any such acts and therefore has no liability for them.

7

12. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches because

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8 Plaintiffs, to the extent they suffered any harm, did not act promptly to notify Best Buy of the

9 harm and by sitting on their rights allowed further harm to occur.

10

13. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands

11 and/or estoppel by reason of the conduct and actions of Plaintiffs and/or each of them.

12

14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver by reason

13 of the conduct and actions of Plaintiffs and/or each of them.

14

15. Plaintiffs’ claims are improperly joined in a single action in violation of Rule 20 of

15 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore should be dismissed or severed and proceeded

16 with separately.

17

16. Plaintiffs’ claims are improperly venued in the Northern District of California and

18 should be dismissed or transferred to the appropriate district.

19

17. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by their failure to mitigate, or

20 reasonably attempt to mitigate, their alleged damages.

21

18. Some or all of the Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, the existence and/or extent of which

22 Best Buy denies, may be barred by the after-acquired evidence doctrine.

23

19. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiffs’ failure to perform in

24 accordance with California Labor Code sections 2854, 2856-59, and 2863, as applicable.

25

20. Best Buy denies that Plaintiffs’ gender, race, color and/or national origin or any

26 other impermissible factor played any role in the employment decisions relating to Plaintiffs.

27 Alternatively, even if some impermissible factor had played a role in any of those decisions,

28

LA 60200831.1

- 27 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 which Best Buy denies, the same decision would have been reached for legitimate

2 nondiscriminatory reasons.

3

21. To the extent Plaintiffs can state a prima facie case of discrimination based on

4 disparate impact, which Best Buy denies, Best Buy’s actions generally and with respect to

5 Plaintiffs individually were job related and consistent with business necessity.

6

22. Plaintiffs cannot maintain a class action because they lack standing to assert claims

7 individually and/or on behalf of a putative class.

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

8

23. Best Buy Co., Inc. is not a proper defendant to this action.

9

Best Buy shall seek leave of court to amend its Answer to add additional averments and/or

10 defenses that it may discover as the case progresses.

11

PRAYER

12

WHEREFORE, Best Buy prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the SAC, that

13 their claims be dismissed with prejudice, that judgment be entered in favor of Best Buy as to all

14 of Plaintiffs’ claims, and that Best Buy be awarded its costs and attorneys’ fees in the matter and

15 such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

16

17 DATED: March 10, 2008
18

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

19

By: /s/ Roman M. Silberfeld _________________

Roman M. Silberfeld 20

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 21

George A. Stohner

22

Melinda S. Riechert

23

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

BEST BUY COMPANY, INC. AND

24

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.

25

26

27

28

LA 60200831.1

- 28 -

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI
L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

)

) ss.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, California 90067-3208.

On March 10, 2008, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS BEST BUY CO., INC.’ AND BEST BUY STORES, L.P.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:

Christopher M. Patti, Esq. The Regents of the University of California Office of the General Counsel 1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor Oakland, CA 94607-5200 E-mail: Christopher.Patti@ucop.edu

Camilla Louisa Roberson, Esq. Schneider & Wallace 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 E-mail: Croberson@schneiderwallace.com

James G. Allison, Senior Attorney Office of Legal Counsel Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 E-mail: James.Allison@eeoc.gov

[X] BY MAIL: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[X] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused a true copy of the document described to be served by electronic mail to the addressee above.
[] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS - OVERNIGHT: I caused such envelope to be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Federal Express in an envelope or package designated by Federal Express with delivery fees paid.
[X] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction service was made.

Executed on March 10, 2008 at Los Angeles, California.

LA1 60138444.1

/s/ Rosa Irajpanah Rosa Irajpanah

PROOF OF SERVICE

 
 JASMEN HOLLOWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BEST BUY CO., INC., et al., Defendants.
No. C 05-5056 PJH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OPINION
ORDER STAYING RULING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION; REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING; DENYING SEALING REQUESTS
Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and for appointment of counsel and defendant's motions to strike came on for hearing before the court on June 3, 2009. Since that date the court has endeavored unsuccessfully to issue a dispositive ruling on the pending matters. Although the court has spent considerable time revisiting [*4] and reviewing the parties' papers and arguments, the court now concludes that despite careful consideration of the relevant legal authority already presented by the parties, there are significant legal issues that remain either unresolved or insufficiently briefed by the parties -- the collective impact of which is to prevent the court from issuing a dispositive ruling on the motions at the present time, absent additional guidance from the Court of Appeal and additional briefing by the parties.
As is well established, the parameters of the court's class certification analysis are dictated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 23(a) and (b). Under FRCP 23(a), plaintiffs must satisfy numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1-4). In addition to demonstrating these requirements, plaintiffs must also satisfy one of the requirements of FRCP 23(b). Here, plaintiffs generally seek certification of a nationwide class of Best Buy's past, present, and future employees and applicants who are members of protected gender and minority classes, and who have been subjected to Best Buy's discriminatory policies and practices in hiring, job assignments, promotions [*5] and exempt compensation decisions. As with any class certification motion, plaintiffs' motion is premised on argument and proffered evidence which they believe establish compliance with all requirements for certification under both FRCP 23(a) and (b). The court concludes, however, that there are significant barriers to issuance of a dispositive certification ruling as to both 23(a) and (b) factors.
In regards to FRCP 23(a), and in particular with respect to any analysis of commonality and typicality, the two factors most strongly disputed by defendants, the court has determined that such analysis should be informed by the Ninth Circuit's anticipated en banc ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., See, e.g., 556 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2009). As plaintiffs' opening brief -- which relied heavily on the 2007 panel decision in the case -- made clear, the Dukes v. Wal-Mart action is directly on point. It, too, considered the propriety of class certification of a large-scale nationwide class of past and present employees alleging discriminatory pay and promotions policies. There, as here, plaintiffs sought to satisfy the commonality requirement of FRCP 23(a) by introducing evidence of: company wide/central [*6] policies and practices; expert sociological opinion regarding the vulnerability of such policies to discriminatory bias; statistical evidence regarding disparities between the plaintiff class and other employees in terms of compensation and promotion; and anecdotal evidence of defendant's alleged "pattern and practice" of discrimination. And plaintiffs there, as they do here, also relied on proof of managers' subjective decision making in demonstrating commonality. Additionally, plaintiffs in both cases relied on a FRCP 23(b)(2) showing to meet the second requirement for certification.
In 2007, a majority of the three judge panel affirmed the district court's certification of the plaintiff class in Dukes, taking the occasion to provide an in depth analysis of commonality and typicality, as well as an evaluation of the same type of evidence plaintiffs rely on in this case. For the reasons noted above, that analysis would be particularly useful here. In granting en banc review of the case, however, the Ninth Circuit has removed from this court's consideration, the panel's conclusions about the ultimate value of plaintiffs' proffered evidence in Dukes -- and the proper inferences to be [*7] drawn therefrom. In this court's opinion the en banc ruling to be issued by the Ninth Circuit in Dukes is therefore likely to impact the scope of the 23(a) analysis in this case.
To be sure, there are significant differences between the present action, and the Dukes case. While the size of the plaintiff class in Dukes far exceeded the size of the potential class alleged here, the certification issues under 23(a) -commonality, typicality, adequacy -- are more complex in the present action, as plaintiffs here seek to press differing

race discrimination claims in addition to gender discrimination claims, in connection with job assignments, hiring, pay and promotions decisions. Thus, any analysis may also be more complex, and certification a loftier goal in light of the additional complexity. Nonetheless, in view of the similarities in the evidentiary showing proffered by plaintiffs in both cases, the en banc ruling in Dukes may very well be dispositive as to certain issues under 23(a) raised by plaintiffs here, and even if not dispositive, will undoubtedly provide valuable guidance for this court in ruling on the pending motions. In view of the likely utility of the en banc decision [*8] to the issues pending in these motions, the court has decided to stay the certification ruling in this action pending the en banc decision.
The court also lacks sufficient information to properly analyze plaintiffs' showing under FRCP 23(b). Plaintiffs have relied on FRCP 23(b)(2) for class certification, which requires the court to determine whether the primary relief being sought by the plaintiff class is injunctive and/or declaratory in nature. See, e..g, Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 947 (9th Cir. 2003); Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1195 (9th Cir. 2001)("[c]lass certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate only where the primary relief sought is declaratory or injunctive"). Under the present record, however, the court is unable to ascertain as much. As pled, plaintiffs seek not only injunctive and declaratory relief, but also significant monetary relief in the form of front pay, back pay and punitive damages. While the presence of a request for significant monetary relief makes it difficult to determine whether the qualitative value of injunctive and declaratory relief predominates over plaintiffs' requests for monetary relief, this inquiry is [*9] rendered nearly impossible by the fact that plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of former employees and past applicants in addition to present and future employees, without distinction as to the number of plaintiffs who fall into any category.
This is problematic because, with respect to former employees who were no longer employed by Best Buy at the time plaintiffs' complaint was filed, and past applicants who had never been employed by Best Buy at the time the complaint was filed, standing to bring suit for injunctive and declaratory relief is most probably lacking. See, e.g., Walsh v. Nev. Dep't of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006)(recognizing that former employees lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they "would not stand to benefit from an injunction requiring the anti-discriminatory policies [to cease] at [their] former place of work"); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Lomax, 471 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 2006) (when evaluating whether standing is present, a court must look at the facts as they exist at the time the complaint was filed). Thus, the propriety of certification under FRCP 23(b)(2) may be impacted depending upon [*10] the remaining size of the plaintiff class that does have standing (i.e., present employees and/or current applicants at the time plaintiffs' complaint was filed). As a result, and without additional information from both parties' with respect to the numbers of class members who fall into each of the present/former/employee/applicant categories, the ultimate propriety of certification under FRCP 23(b)(2) remains unclear. 1 Additionally, neither party addressed in their briefs how the court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings effects the size of the proposed class or the various categories referenced above, information that is also necessary to the class certification question.
1 The court requested this information at the hearing, but does not recall of which party the request was made. In any event, the information has been provided by neither.
In addition, the court's review of the parties' arguments has illuminated a further issue that counsels against an immediate ruling on class certification. Plaintiffs seek certification of the proposed class as to liability only and not as to damages or remedies. Indeed, plaintiffs' papers appear to presume that whether [*11] to proceed in a single or a bifurcated proceeding was not within the authority of the court to decide. As noted at the hearing, plaintiffs filed no motion to bifurcate liability from damages, and have not otherwise substantively addressed the preliminary question whether liability should be bifurcated from damages in the first place. 2 Without such explanation, the court is without a clear understanding of how, precisely, certification of a liability phase would affect the class members' ability to prove their claims as a whole or defendants' ability to defend. Plaintiffs have not, for example, adequately addressed how monetary relief (including back pay, front pay and punitive damages) would be managed if they were to prevail at the liability stage. While they argue that a generic formula can be devised to determine monetary damages on a class-wide basis, the court is not entirely persuaded that a generic formula is appropriate for this case given the wide diversity of the class and the claims.
2 Although plaintiffs note in a passing reference made by way of a footnote that "[c]ourts regularly bifurcate liability and remedies phases in employment discrimination class actions," the court [*12] finds this conclusory statement insufficient to adequately address the issue.
Notwithstanding plaintiffs' reliance on case law that carves out exceptions to the general rule that individualized remedies must normally be provided for each claimant, the court remains concerned that plaintiffs' formula-based ap-

proach is inadequately individualized. In short, without stronger, and more targeted substantive arguments and pertinent legal authority regarding the impact of bifurcation on the class as a whole and the propriety of separately determining monetary relief via generalized statistical evidence on a class wide basis, the court is unprepared to accept plaintiffs' conclusory argument that certification of a class for liability purposes only is warranted. The court also notes that plaintiffs' attempt to proceed in a bifurcated fashion is another way in which the class certification question here is more complex than in Dukes.
All the foregoing concerns -- the unresolved nature of pending legal issues relevant to 23(a) factors, the lack of information regarding the make-up of the proposed injunctive relief class, and the lack of clarity with respect to the impact of bifurcated liability [*13] and damages phases upon the class and defendants' ability to defend -- contribute to larger concerns with respect to the manageability of the proposed class action. The proposed class proffered by plaintiffs is large and complex, and the sheer variety of potential permutations among plaintiff groups by type of claimant and claim (e.g., race v. gender discrimination plaintiff; former v. present employee or applicant; hiring v. job assignment v. promotions v. pay claim), is imposing. And while the Ninth Circuit has made clear that, insofar as invocation of FRCP 23(b)(2) is directly at issue, questions of manageability and judicial economy may ultimately be irrelevant, see Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1125 (9th Cir. 2010), it remains unclear whether the court may nonetheless take into account the goals of efficiency and manageability in determining the propriety of class treatment overall, as part of the court's inherent power to control the litigation on its docket. See, e.g., Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998)("[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets"). Accordingly, the issue of manageability in the [*14] present circumstances presents an additional legal issue requiring further briefing.
In sum, therefore, and based on the foregoing, the court hereby orders as follows:
1. The court's ruling on the pending motions shall be STAYED, pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit's en banc rehearing of the Dukes v. Wal-Mart action. This stay order shall extend to plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the corresponding motions to appoint class counsel and defendants' motion to strike expert testimony. The court is unaware as to the status of merits discovery and the parties are free to submit a stipulation, if they wish, to continue discovery during the stay.
2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties shall nonetheless, and in the meantime, proceed to provide the court with additional briefing that addresses the following issues: (a) the propriety of bifurcating the liability and damages phases for purposes of class certification, with an emphasis on the particular propriety of separately determining monetary relief via generalized statistical evidence or a generic formula on a class wide basis, in the event bifurcation is granted; (b) argument and evidence as to the number of class members [*15] who fall into each of the present/former/employee/applicant categories, and the ultimate propriety of certification under FRCP 23(b)(2) in light of this additional information and the court's ruling on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings; and (c) the extent to which the court may rely on its inherent powers to control its docket or other authority in taking manageability concerns into account in determining the ultimate propriety of class certification given a single or bifurcated proceeding.
3. Plaintiffs shall address these additional issues by way of a supplemental opening brief followed by a supplemental opposition and a supplemental reply. The court assumes that the page limitations found in the local rules will be sufficient. The parties shall make every attempt to limit the number of footnotes, and in no event shall submit a brief containing more than 10 footnotes and comprising more than two inches per page. Plaintiffs' opening brief shall be filed by April 9, 2010; defendants' brief no later than May 7, 2010, and plaintiffs' reply no later than May 21, 2010. The court understands that this additional briefing could not have been anticipated by the parties, and [*16] should either party need more time, a stipulation enlarging the time may be filed.
4. Once briefing on these matters is complete, the court will take the foregoing matters under submission, for consideration in conjunction with a final ruling on the motions before the court, once the Ninth Circuit has issued its en banc ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart. The court may additionally request the parties to file a second set of supplemental briefs on the impact of the en banc ruling, should that be warranted by the decision.
5. Finally, the parties have also filed numerous administrative requests to seal certain documents in connection with the pending motions. After certain deficiencies in the filings were brought to the parties' attention, the parties further narrowed the scope of the sealing requests. Notwithstanding the narrowed scope of the sealing requests and the court's effort to review the request, the court has been unable to satisfactorily match its copy of each document sought to be filed under seal, with the parties' corresponding request, as stated in defendants' amended omnibus motion. The court's relocation from San Francisco to Oakland, may have contributed to the disarray of [*17] the chambers copies. Accord-

ingly, the court cannot rule on the requests and hereby DENIES the requests without prejudice to the parties' re-filing a joint sealing motion, provided that any such motion must be accompanied by re-submitted documents for which sealing is sought in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2010 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

 
 Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 28
EXHIBIT 1 To [Proposed] Preliminary Approval Order

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 28

1 James M. Finberg (SBN 114850) Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709)
2 ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300
3 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151
4 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
5 Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Classes on Signature Page
6 Roman M. Silberfeld (SBN 62783)
7 David Martinez (SBN 193183) ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER &
8 CIRESI L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
9 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3211 Telephone: (310) 552-0130
10 Facsimile: (310) 229-5800
11 Additional Attorneys for Defendants Best Buy Co., Inc. and Best Buy Stores, L.P. on
12 Signature Page

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15

JASMEN HOLLOWAY, AMY GARCIA, 16 CHERYL CHAPPEL, ERIC

Case No. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

BLACKSHER, JESSICA TREAS, 17 LAWRENCE SANTIAGO, JR.,
MUEMBO MUANZA, MAURICE 18 CALHOUN, and NICHOLAS DIXON, on

CONSENT DECREE

behalf of themselves and all others 19 similarly situated,

20

Plaintiffs,

21 v.

22 BEST BUY CO., INC. and BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,
23
Defendants. 24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 3 of 28

1 I. 2

GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Purpose

3

Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas,

4 Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, and Nicholas Dixon (collectively

5 referred to as “Named Plaintiffs”) and the Settlement Classes defined herein make and enter into

6 this Consent Decree with Best Buy Co., Inc., and Best Buy Stores, L.P. (collectively referred to as

7 “Best Buy”).

8

The Parties have entered into the Consent Decree for the following purposes:

9

i To resolve all disputes covered by this Consent Decree in such a way as to avoid

10

further expensive and protracted litigation;

11

i To use best efforts to enhance equal employment opportunity for women and

12

minorities working in Best Buy retail stores nationwide;

13

i To use best efforts to hire, assign, promote, transfer, compensate, and retain

14

women and minorities in Best Buy retail stores on a non-discriminatory basis; and

15

i To provide finality to the resolution of all class claims and defenses asserted in the

16

Civil Action and/or covered by this Decree.

17

B. Statement of Dispute

18

The Named Plaintiffs are current and former Best Buy retail store employees, and an

19 applicant for employment at Best Buy. The Named Plaintiffs filed timely charges of race and

20 gender discrimination against Best Buy with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on

21 behalf of themselves and similarly situated females and minorities.

22

Named Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on December 8, 2005. (Dkt. No. 1.) In their Third

23 Amended Complaint, filed on January 6, 2009, Named Plaintiffs allege that Best Buy maintains a

24 pervasive policy or practice of discrimination based on gender, race, color, and/or national origin

25 in denying employment, desirable job assignments, promotions/transfers, and equal exempt

26 compensation to African Americans; denying desirable job assignments, promotions/transfers,

27 and equal exempt compensation to women; and denying desirable job assignments and

28 promotions/transfers to Latino employees in Best Buy retail stores within the United States. (Dkt.

- 1 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 4 of 28

1 No. 142-2.)

2

Named Plaintiffs have vigorously prosecuted this case, and Best Buy has vigorously

3 contested it. As a result, the Parties are able to reliably assess the relative merits of Plaintiffs’

4 claims and Best Buy’s defenses. The following case history describes the extensive discovery

5 that has been conducted in this action:

6

i Named Plaintiffs originally asserted claims based upon alleged discrimination in

7

recruiting, testing, hiring, non-exempt compensation, initial job assignments,

8

allocation of hours, promotions/transfers, the movement of workers from

9

Occasional/Seasonal employees to Regular employees, the movement of

10

employees from part-time positions to full-time positions and exempt

11

compensation.

12

i In responding to plaintiffs’discovery requests in defense of those claims, Best Buy

13

produced over 12 million pages in documents and produced comprehensive

14

employment data covering the nearly 500,000 individuals. The parties collectively

15

took over 80 depositions of factual witness and corporate designees.

16

i The parties collectively submitted expert reports and rebuttal reports from 9 expert

17

witness, including both statistical and social science expert witnesses.

18

i The parties collectively took 13 depositions of expert witnesses.

19

The Parties agree that this discovery was more than sufficient to assess the merits of the

20 respective parties’positions and to compromise in a fair and equitable manner. Additionally,

21 each party’s expert labor economist(s) and/or statisticians analyzed all available employment data

22 and each party’s social science expert(s) reviewed thousands of documents relating to the

23 numerous policies and practices at issue in the case.

24

The Parties and their counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved settlement,

25 they would face a potentially long litigation course, renewed motions for class certification,

26 motions for summary judgment, and trial and appellate proceedings that would consume time and

27 resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The Parties

28 wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as the consumption of time and resources,

- 2 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 5 of 28

1 through settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Decree. After careful review and

2 consideration, the Named Plaintiffs for themselves individually and on behalf of the proposed

3 Settlement Classes and Class Counsel are of the opinion that the settlement set forth in this

4 Decree is fair, reasonable, adequate, and provides prompt relief for the Classes. Class Counsel

5 and the Named Plaintiffs for themselves individually and on behalf of the proposed Settlement

6 Classes believe that the settlement set forth in this Decree is in the best interest of the Classes

7 based on all the facts and circumstances. As reflected by the signatures of counsel at the end of

8 this document, the Parties have consented to entry of this Decree.

9

C. No Admission of Liability

10

Best Buy denies all claims as to liability, wrongdoing, damages, penalties, interest, fees,

11 injunctive relief and all other forms of relief, as well as the class allegations asserted in the Civil

12 Action. Best Buy has agreed to resolve the Civil Action via this Consent Decree, but to the extent

13 this Settlement Agreement is deemed void or the Effective Date does not occur, Best Buy does

14 not waive, but rather expressly reserves, all rights to challenge any and all claims and allegations

15 asserted by the Named Plaintiffs in the Civil Action upon all procedural and substantive grounds,

16 including without limitation the ability to challenge class action treatment on any grounds and to

17 assert any and all other potential defenses or privileges. The Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel

18 agree that Best Buy retains and reserves these rights, and they agree not to take a position to the

19 contrary. Specifically, the Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree that, if the Civil Action

20 were to proceed, they will not argue or present any argument, and hereby waive any argument

21 that, based on the settlement or this Decree or any exhibit and attachment hereto, or any act

22 performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the settlement or this Decree,

23 Best Buy should be barred from contesting class action certification pursuant to Federal Rule of

24 Civil Procedure 23 on any grounds, or from asserting any and all other potential defenses and

25 privileges.

26

This Decree shall not be deemed an admission by, or ground for estoppel against Best Buy

27 that class action treatment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in the Civil Action is

28 proper or cannot be contested on any grounds. Additionally, neither the Decree nor the

- 3 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 6 of 28

1 settlement, nor any act performed or document executed pursuant to, or in furtherance of, the

2 Decree or the settlement: (a) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission or

3 evidence of the validity of the claims of the Named Plaintiffs or any member of the Settlement

4 Classes, or of any wrongdoing toward or liability to the Named Plaintiffs or any member of the

5 Settlement Classes; or (b) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission or evidence

6 of any fault or omission of the Named Plaintiffs or any member of the Settlement Classes in any

7 civil, criminal or administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal.

8

This Decree is a compromise and shall not be construed as an admission of liability at any

9 time or for any purpose, under any circumstances, by the Named Plaintiffs or any member of the

10 Settlement Classes. The Parties and the members of the Settlement Classes further acknowledge

11 and agree that neither this Decree nor the settlement shall be used to suggest an admission of

12 liability in any dispute the Parties and the Named Plaintiffs or any member of the Settlement

13 Classes may have now or in the future with respect to any person or entity. Neither this Decree

14 nor anything in it, nor any part of the negotiations that occurred in connection with the creation of

15 this settlement, shall constitute evidence with respect to any issue or dispute in any lawsuit, legal

16 proceeding, or administrative proceeding, except for legal proceedings concerning the

17 enforcement or interpretation of this Decree.

18

D. Settlement Classes

19

Solely for purposes of settlement and judicial approval of this Decree, the Parties stipulate

20 to the certification of the following Settlement Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

21 Procedure 23(b)(2):

22

African American Class: All African Americans who were employed in Best Buy

23

retail stores within the United States for one or more days beginning on or after December 8, 2005 (the date the Complaint was filed) through the date that the

24

Consent Decree terminates.

25

Latino Class: All Latinos who were employed in Best Buy retail stores within the

United States for one or more days beginning on or after December 8, 2005 (the

26

date the Complaint was filed) through the date that the Consent Decree terminates.

27

Female Class: All women who were employed in Best Buy retail stores within the

28

United States for one or more days beginning on or after December 8, 2005 (the

- 4 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 7 of 28

1

date the Complaint was filed) through the date that the Consent Decree terminates.

2

None of the Classes shall include Best Buy General Managers (for the time period

3 during which Best Buy employed them as General Manager); persons who occupied Geek

4 Squad or Service positions (for the time period during which they occupied those

5 positions); or employees of Magnolia stand-alone stores (for the time period during which

6 Magnolia employed them).

7

E. Scope of Consent Decree

8

The provisions of the Consent Decree shall apply to all retail stores located within the

9 United States and owned by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., and all of their former,

10 current, and prospective wholly owned subsidiaries.

11

F. Definitions

12

1. “Best Buy”refers to Best Buy Co., Inc., and Best Buy Stores, L.P.

13

2. “Class Counsel”refers to Altshuler Berzon L.L.P.; Lieff, Cabraser,

14

Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P.; Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson,

15

P.C.; and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, L.L.P.

16

3. “Civil Action”shall refer to this matter, captioned Holloway et al. v. Best

17

Buy Co., Inc., Case No. C 05-05056, filed in the Northern District of

18

California before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton.

19

4. “Class Member”means a member of one or more of the Settlement Classes

20

stipulated to in Section I.D.

21

5. “Effective Date”means the date upon which all of the following have

22

occurred: (1) entry by the Court of the Final Approval Order, (2) entry by

23

the Court of the Final Judgment, and (3) the appeal period (i.e., 30 days)

24

has run without an appeal of any Court order, or in the event of an appeal,

25

the Parties have received actual notice that the settlement has received final

26

approval after completion of the appellate process and the final resolution

27

of any appeals.

28

- 5 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 8 of 28

1

6. “Final Approval”refers to the date upon which the Court signs the Final

2

Approval Order after having found this Consent Decree to be fair,

3

adequate, and reasonable.

4

7. “Final Approval and Fairness Hearing”refers to a hearing by the Court to

5

(a) review this Consent Decree and determine whether the Court should

6

grant final approval to the Consent Decree; (b) consider any timely

7

objections made pursuant to Section XII and all responses by the Parties;

8

(c) give final approval to the Consent Decree under Rule 23(e) of the

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (d) consider the request for attorneys’

10

fees and expenses submitted by Class Counsel; and (e) consider the Named

11

Plaintiffs’requests for service payments.

12

8. “Final Approval Order”refers to the document attached hereto as Exhibit

13

C.

14

9. “Final Judgment”refers to the document attached hereto as Exhibit D.

15

10. “Parties”refers to Defendants Best Buy Co., Inc. and Best Buy Stores,

16

L.P., and the Named Plaintiffs for themselves individually and on behalf of

17

the proposed Settlement Classes.

18

11. “Named Plaintiffs”refers to Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl

19

Chappel, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Muembo

20

Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, and Nicholas Dixon.

21

12. “Notice”refers to the document attached hereto as Exhibit A.

22

13. “Preliminary Approval Order”refers to the document attached hereto as

23

Exhibit B.

24

14. “Released Claims”means the claims released by the Settlement Classes as

25

specifically set forth in Section V.

26

15. “Settlement Classes”or “Classes”collectively refers to all of the Classes

27

stipulated to Section I.D.

28

16. “Term of the Decree”refers to the time period set forth in Section II.M.

- 6 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 9 of 28

1

G. Jurisdiction

2

The District Court of the Northern District of California has jurisdiction over the Parties

3 and subject matter of this action. The Third Amended Complaint in this action asserts claims

4 that, if proved, would authorize the Court to grant the injunctive relief set forth in this Consent

5 Decree. Venue is proper in this Court. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during

6 the Term of the Decree for the purpose of entering all orders authorized by the Decree, which

7 may be necessary to implement the relief provided in the Decree or to enforce the provisions of

8 the Decree.

9 II. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PROVISIONS

10

A. General Non-Discrimination Provisions

11

1. Best Buy will continue to maintain non-discrimination and anti-harassment

12 policies and an internal complaint and anti-retaliation procedure designed to ensure equal

13 employment opportunity consistent with law and the terms of this Decree.

14

2. Best Buy shall not for the duration of the Decree maintain or enact any

15 policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against any

16 employee on the basis of gender or race, or that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Decree.

17

B. Communications

18

1. Best Buy will continue to make available its non-discrimination and anti-

19 harassment policies to all employees upon hire and shall continuously post these policies together

20 with a message in support thereof from its CEO, updated annually, on its intranet. Best Buy

21 employees will acknowledge receipt of these documents on the Company’s intranet website, and

22 such acknowledgment will be audited.

23

2. In addition, Best Buy’s Executive Vice President, Retail Stores or

24 equivalent shall continuously post on the Company’s intranet site a separate statement, updated

25 annually, in support of these policies and their underlying tenets.

26

3. Best Buy’s President of U.S. Retail Stores or highest ranking officer in

27 attendance will make a separate live statement in support of these policies and their underlying

28 tenets to all Store General managers, at any annual, national General Manager meetings (e.g.,

- 7 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 10 of 28

1 Road Show) to the extent such meetings occur during the term of the Decree. If during the term

2 of this Decree, in lieu of a national meeting of GMs, Best Buy GMs meet in smaller, regional

3 groups, then the highest ranking officer in attendance at such meetings shall issue such a

4 statement at those meetings.

5

C. Hiring and Initial Job Assignment

6

1. Best Buy has developed selection procedures and processes, including

7 interview guides (“Selection Procedures”), that have been reviewed, and revised as necessary, by

8 an I/O psychologist to ensure they are valid for the selection of all in-store positions. Plaintiffs’

9 Counsel has received confirmation from Best Buy of the professional qualifications of the I/O

10 psychologist and has been provided copies of the selection procedures (including the interview

11 guides). Best Buy shall have the discretion to modify the Selection Procedures, except that any

12 material modifications shall be done through the analysis and review of an internal or external I/O

13 psychologist and shall be consistent with the purpose of this Decree.

14

2. Best Buy will require the use of the Selection Procedures for the selection

15 of in-store positions. Best Buy will conduct regular training for involved staff in the use of the

16 Selection Procedures, the conduct of structured interviews, the selection of qualified candidates

17 using the structured interviews and interview guides, and other elements of the Hiring Process,

18 including the Company’s interest in hiring qualified diverse candidates into all open store

19 positions for which they may be qualified. Best Buy shall regularly audit to ensure compliance

20 with the Selection Procedures.

21

3. Best Buy’s Selection Procedures will reiterate Best Buy’s commitment to

22 diversity in race, color, national origin and gender, and encourage the hiring of qualified diverse

23 candidates.

24

4.

Descriptions of jobs will accompany postings of available positions in Best

25 Buy’s online application system(s). These descriptions shall clearly provide a summary of job

26 duties and required qualifications applicable to the posted position.

27

5. Best Buy shall designate a qualified individual to fill a dedicated position

28 within Best Buy whose primary function will be the sourcing, recruitment, and retention of

- 8 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 11 of 28

1 qualified diverse management candidates, including qualified African Americans, Latinos, and

2 women, throughout the organization.

3

D. Promotions and Transfers

4

1. Registration of Interest

5

a. Best Buy shall implement an electronic process for all store-level

6 employees and managers to register interest in any full-time, senior, supervisor and/or exempt

7 position. No managerial approval will be required for employees or managers to register. This

8 registry will provide descriptions of job duties applicable to all store positions.

9

b. Registration of interest will be valid for 6 months. All employees

10 will be advised that they must update the Registry as their interests change and must re-register

11 every 6 months. Best Buy shall display reminders about the availability of the Registry of

12 Interest and the need to update registration every six months on the home page of the intranet for

13 at least 7 consecutive days, on a quarterly basis. This communication will be audited by the

14 Corporate Audit Department.

15

c. Managers must check the registry of interest when filling any open

16 full-time, senior, supervisor, and/or exempt manager position within the same store. Managers

17 will first consider moving current employees who have registered interest into open full-time non-

18 managerial positions before filling such positions with external candidates or internal candidates

19 who have not expressed interest.

20

d. Best Buy shall regularly audit to ensure compliance with the

21 Registry of Interest procedures.

22

2. Job Analysis

23

a. In consultation with expert internal and external I/O Psychologists,

24 Best Buy has developed minimum eligibility requirements for in-store Supervisor positions that

25 are job related and consistent with business necessity and has implemented those requirements in

26 the selection for in-store Supervisor positions. Plaintiffs’Counsel have considered and approved

27 the professional qualifications of the external I/O psychologists retained for this work.

28

- 9 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 12 of 28

1

b. Best Buy has provided Plaintiffs’counsel with the job analyses,

2 including minimum eligibility requirements, and job-related criteria.

3

3. Posting

4

a. Best Buy shall post all open senior, supervisor and exempt manager

5 positions through an internal electronic job posting system accessible to all Best Buy store-level

6 employees. The only exceptions to this policy shall be in the case of business necessity which

7 shall include company reorganization (e.g., consolidating stores), employee-initiated inter-store

8 transfers, or other business necessities as determined by a Territory H.R. Director, a Territory

9 Director, a District HR Manager, a District Manager, or higher ranking official. The

10 identification of a preferred candidate or urgency to fill a position quickly will not be deemed a

11 business necessity for the purposes of this Decree. All instances in which a covered position is

12 not posted based on business necessity shall be documented and reported to the Monitor for

13 inclusion in the Monitor’s annual report to the Board. Open positions shall be posted for no less

14 than 5 days before being filled. Applications for exempt manager positions shall be accepted

15 electronically. 16

b. Each internal job posting shall contain the open position title,

17 location, description of the job, and valid job-related criteria and requirements. While the job

18 requirements may include time-in-position requirements before posting, no managerial sign off

19 will be required for an employee to submit an internal job posting application.

20

c. The Corporate Audit Department will audit stores to ensure that the

21 job posting policy is followed.

22

4. Promotion Decisions

23

a. Best Buy has developed Selection Procedures for promotions into

24 supervisor or exempt manager positions reviewed, and revised as necessary, by an I/O

25 psychologist to ensure they are valid. Plaintiffs’Counsel has received confirmation from Best

26 Buy of the professional qualifications of the I/O psychologist and has been provided copies of the

27 Selection Procedures (including interview guides). Best Buy shall have the discretion to modify

28

- 10 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 13 of 28

1 the Selection Procedures, except that any material modification shall be done through the analysis

2 of an internal or external I/O psychologist.

3

b. Best Buy will regularly train involved staff in the Selection

4 Procedures used in the Promotion process, including the Company’s interest in developing

5 qualified diverse candidates.

6

c. The tools used as part of Best Buy’s Selection Procedures will

7 reiterate Best Buy’s commitment to diversity in race, color, national origin and gender.

8

d. Best Buy will audit regularly to ensure that the Selection

9 Procedures are followed.

10

5. Talent Bench

11

Best Buy will implement processes designed to increase the available bench of

12 qualified African Americans, Latinos, and women for promotion to management at all of its retail

13 stores. Best Buy will continue to ensure that when they are done, training programs and formal

14 mentoring opportunities will be available to all employees who aspire to management positions

15 regardless of race or gender, with the exception of those specifically targeting the development of

16 minority and/or female employees.

17

E. Exempt Compensation

18

1. Best Buy will retain an I/O psychologist and/or outside compensation

19 specialist to review the Compensation Guides and grids and provide recommendations regarding

20 the Compensation Guides. Plaintiffs’Counsel will receive confirmation from Best Buy of the

21 professional qualifications of the I/O psychologist or compensation specialist.

22

2. Best Buy shall train its managers in how to set exempt compensation using

23 the tools developed by the I/O psychologists and/or outside compensation specialist.

24

3. Under the direction of Best Buy’s Monitor, Best Buy will regularly, and no

25 less than annually, review the compensation of exempt managers by position, grade, store,

26 District, and tenure, along with the managers’EEO characteristics, to determine whether there

27 has been non-compliance with Best Buy’s policies against discrimination.

28

- 11 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 14 of 28

1

F. General Training Provisions

2

1. Upon hire, all employees will continue to be required to receive training on

3 Best Buy’s non-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation policies.

4

2. Best Buy shall require that all supervisors and managers receive diversity

5 training annually.

6

3.

In its training related to customer marketing strategies, Best Buy shall

7 explicitly train managers that these strategies should not be interpreted to influence or guide Best

8 Buy’s hiring, recruitment, job assignment, transfer, promotion, or compensation practices.

9

4. Best Buy will offer training to all employees in how to use the registration

10 of interest and the internal job posting systems.

11

5. Best Buy’s corporate audit department will ensure that the training listed in

12 Sections F.1 and 2 occurs annually.

13

6. Within 6 months of the Effective Date of the Decree or, where applicable,

14 implementation of the injunctive relief required by this Decree, Best Buy shall train all of its

15 General Managers regarding the following terms of this Decree: hiring and promotion

16 procedures; the use of interview guides; the registry of interest; job posting; the distinction

17 between customer marketing and employee staffing; the complaint procedure; and the company’s

18 policies against discrimination and retaliation and its support for a diverse workforce. Such

19 training will also be provided to all new General Managers upon hire or promotion.

20

G. Complaint Process

21

1. Best Buy shall continue to maintain an Internal Complaint Procedure to

22 provide for the filing, investigation and, if appropriate, remedying of complaints of discrimination

23 or retaliation by employees or applicants for employment on the basis of race, color, national

24 origin or gender, or where a violation of this Decree has occurred or is alleged. Best Buy will

25 maintain its policy of investigating complaints through Human Resources personnel based in the

26 United States. The policy shall provide that persons engaging in such conduct will be subject to

27 appropriate discipline, up to and including discharge. The procedure for filing internal

28

- 12 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 15 of 28

1 complaints shall be continuously maintained on Best Buy’s intranet site. Plaintiffs’Counsel has

2 been provided a copy of the Complaint Procedure.

3

2. Best Buy will communicate the complaint process and policy against

4 retaliation upon hire. In addition, on at least an annual basis, Best Buy will display information

5 about the complaint process and policy against retaliation on the home page of the intranet for at

6 least 7 consecutive days. Information about the complaint process and policy against retaliation

7 will be continuously available on the intranet.

8

3. The Monitor shall have access to EEO complaints during the term of the

9 Decree.

10

H.

Manager Assessment

11 All supervisors, exempt store managers, and district managers shall be evaluated
12 annually on their ability to manage a diverse workforce, including in decisions involving hiring,
13 promotions, and compensation, and their compliance with the letter and spirit of this Decree. An
14 internal or external I/O psychologist will advise Best Buy on how best to conduct and weigh this
15 evaluation.
16 I. Monitor
17 1. Best Buy shall designate an officer to ensure implementation of this
18 Decree. Plaintiffs’Counsel will be provided with the Monitor’s qualifications and title. The
19 officer shall report at least annually to Best Buy’s Board of Directors regarding the
20 implementation of this Decree. The officer shall be authorized and empowered to direct Human
21 Resources and/or individual store mangers to take specific actions in furtherance of this Decree.
22 2. The officer shall be entitled to, and shall, regularly request, receive, and
23 analyze available quantitative data, separated by race and gender, on the following: the numbers
24 of applicants for jobs at Best Buy, the numbers hired, and the numbers per each job into which
25 they were hired; the numbers of employees hired into full-time vs. part-time jobs, and hired into
26 permanent jobs from occasional/seasonal jobs; the numbers of employees using the registry of
27 interest and those obtaining jobs in which they express an interest; the number applying for
28

- 13 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 16 of 28

1 promotion and those obtaining promotions for which they apply; and the relative compensation of

2 exempt employees.

3

3. The Monitor shall file a Certificate of Compliance with the Court six

4 months after the Effective Date of this Decree, 12 months after the effective date of this Decree

5 and annually thereafter over the term of this Decree. The Certificate of Compliance will inform

6 the Court of when Best Buy has implemented each of the terms of the Decree or, if some term has

7 not been fully implemented, Best Buy’s progress in implementing that term.

8

If Best Buy makes any modification to the Selection System (including Interview

9 Guides), the Certificate of Compliance shall also report that modifications have taken place,

10 whether Best Buy considers those modifications material, and, if so, certification of analysis and

11 review by I/O psychologist, as set forth in Sections II.C.1 and II.D.4.a of the Decree.

12

The Certificate of Compliance will also confirm that Best Buy has audited all

13 items requiring audit as set forth in Sections II.B.1, II.C.2, II.D.1.b, II.D.1.d, II.D.3.c, II.D.4.d,

14 and II.F.5 of the Decree, and either that the results of the audit were satisfactory or that corrective

15 action is in the process of being, or has been, taken.

16

The Certificate of Compliance will also confirm that the Monitor has undertaken

17 those tasks set forth for the Monitor in this Section II.I of the Decree, the Monitor has

18 investigated Best Buy’s compliance with the Decree, and the Monitor is satisfied that Best Buy is

19 complying with the Decree and/or has taken or is in the process of taking corrective action to

20 assure future compliance.

21

J. Recordkeeping

22

Best Buy will maintain all records for monitoring of implementation of the Decree

23 for the term of the Decree.

24

K. Dispute Resolution

25

The parties may agree to the appointment of a mutually-acceptable special master,

26 paid for by Best Buy, to resolve disputes under the Decree. The Decree shall be entered as an

27 order of the Court and the Court shall retain jurisdiction during the term of the Decree to enforce

28 its provisions.

- 14 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 17 of 28

1

L. Implementation Period

2

Best Buy shall use its good faith best efforts to implement the programmatic relief

3 set forth herein as soon as reasonably practicable. In the event it requires more than 12 months

4 fully to implement the relief herein, the term of the Decree shall be extended by the additional

5 time over 12 months that is required for implementation of that specific programmatic relief, with

6 respect to the specific programmatic relief not yet implemented and any related relief.

7

M. Term of Decree

8

The term of the Decree shall be 4 years from the Effective Date.

9 III. NOTICE TO CLASSES

10

In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Parties agree to the following

11 notice plan: the Notices shall be provided to Class Members in a form approved by the Court.

12 The Parties’proposed Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Notice provides Class

13 Members with a description of the injunctive terms of the Consent Decree, their right to object to

14 the Consent Decree at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel’s request for

15 attorneys’fees and costs, and Named Plaintiffs’request for service payments. In addition, the

16 Notice directs Class Members to the class action website that describes the terms of the Consent

17 Decree and contains electronic versions of the Consent Decree, Class Counsels’application for

18 fees and costs, and the motion for service payments for the Named Plaintiffs.

19

In their motion seeking preliminary approval of the Agreement, the Parties will propose a

20 notice plan that includes the following types of notice:

21

A. Notice distributed by email to current Best Buy employees with Best Buy email

22

addresses;

23

B. Notice conspicuously posted in areas of Best Buy’s U.S. retail stores frequented by

24

current employees;

25

C. Notice mailed and/or e-mailed to all individuals in the Class Member database

26

maintained by Class Counsel;

27

D. Notice on the class action website maintained by Class Counsel, including an

28

electronic copy of the Notice, and electronic copies of the Consent Decree, Class

- 15 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 18 of 28

1

Counsel’s application for fees and costs and the Motion of the Named Plaintiffs for

2

Service Payments; and

3

E. Notice on www.BestBuy.com, under the existing heading, “LEGAL.”

4

Best Buy shall bear the costs of preparing and distributing the Notice described in

5 categories A, B, and E above. Class Counsel shall bear the costs of preparing and distributing the

6 Notice described in categories C and D above.

7

Counsel for the Parties shall distribute the Notice as described herein not later than two

8 weeks (14 days) after entry of the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. 9 IV. RELEASE BY NAMED PLAINTIFFS

10

In consideration for the mutual promises and covenants set forth or referred to in this

11 Consent Decree, by separate settlement agreements to be filed under seal with the Court, the

12 Named Plaintiffs, upon the grant of Final Approval, the exhaustion of all appeals (if any) from the

13 grant of Final Approval, and Best Buy’s assumption of all of its obligations under this Decree,

14 will release Best Buy from any and all claims, including but not limited to individual and class

15 claims for race and gender discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as

16 amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 17 2000e, et seq., and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, as amended, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940, 18 et seq., that have accrued any time prior to the date of execution of the separate settlement

19 agreements to be filed under seal with the Court. 20 V. RELEASE BY SETTLEMENT CLASSES

21

The members of the Settlement Classes who are not Named Plaintiffs release all claims

22 for classwide injunctive and declaratory relief of whatever nature, known or unknown that the

23 Named Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Classes may have against Best Buy, its

24 subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and in the case of all such entities, their respective past and

25 present owners, representatives, officers, directors, attorneys, agents, employees, insurers,

26 successors and assigns (collectively referred to as the “Released Parties”), arising out of the same

27 transactions, series of connected transactions, occurrences or nucleus of operative facts that form

28 the basis of the claims that were or could have been asserted in the Civil Action including claims

- 16 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 19 of 28

1 arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil 2 Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing 3 Act (“FEHA”), as amended, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940, et seq., the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 4 206, et seq., or under any other federal, state, local or common laws or regulations. This release

5 includes, but is not limited to, claims for classwide injunctive or declaratory relief alleging a

6 class-wide pattern and practice of race, national origin and gender discrimination in, or an

7 unlawful disparate impact associated with, (1) recruitment, (2) pre-employment testing, (3) entry-

8 level hiring, (4) job assignments, (5) promotions/transfers; (6) movement from

9 Occasional/Seasonal to Regular status; (7) movement from part-time to full-time employment; or

10 (8) the allocation of hours of work. This release includes and covers without limitation all

11 actions, decisions, or omissions occurring up to and including the Preliminary Approval date as

12 defined subject to the provisions set forth herein. The members of the Settlement Classes who are

13 not Named Plaintiffs do not release any claims for individual monetary relief, including without

14 limitation back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, or prejudgment

15 interest, nor do they release any claims for individual injunctive or declaratory relief for any past

16 or current violations of Title VII, Section 1981, or FEHA, or for any relief that may be

17 appropriate for any future violation of this Consent Decree or applicable law. 18 VI. CIVIL CODE § 1542 WAIVER

19

a. As a further consideration and inducement for this Consent Decree and upon

20 payment as well as the satisfaction or waiver of any conditions subsequent set forth herein, to the

21 extent permitted by law, with respect to the Released Claims, the Parties hereto waive and release

22 any and all rights under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code or any analogous state, local,

23 or federal law, statute, rule, order, or regulation that they have or may have, acknowledge that the

24 effect and impact of such Section has been explained to them by their own counsel, and further

25 acknowledge that they may hereafter discover facts different than or in addition to those which

26 they now know or believe to be true with respect to the claims, demands, debts, liabilities,

27 actions, causes of action, costs and expenses released, and except for those items specifically

28 exempted from this Consent Decree in this paragraph, agree that this Consent Decree shall be and

- 17 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 20 of 28

1 remain effective notwithstanding such different or additional facts. California Civil Code Section

2 1542 reads as follows:

3

"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH

THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXISTS IN HIS

4

FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF

KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS

5

SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR."

6

b. The Parties to this Consent Decree, for themselves and all persons for whose

7

benefit this Decree is made expressly waive the protections of California Civil Code Section 1542

8

with respect to the Released Claims.

9

VII. DISMISSAL OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, INCLUDING REQUEST FOR

10

CERTIFICATION OF CLAIMS FOR MONETARY RELIEF, WITH PREJUDICE

11

Best Buy contends that the monetary relief claims both have no merit and are not suitable

12 for class certification. The Final Approval Order shall dismiss the Third Amended Complaint,

13 including all claims for class certification of back pay, front pay and punitive damages under

14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), with prejudice. 15 VIII. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF FOR THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS

16

Recognizing that the Named Plaintiffs are relinquishing and releasing their claims for

17 monetary relief asserted in this action, and in full and complete settlement of all of their monetary

18 claims against Best Buy as described above in Section IV, Best Buy shall pay Named Plaintiffs a

19 total of $200,000, to be distributed as set forth in the separate settlement agreements to be filed

20 under seal with the Court.

21

Best Buy shall pay the above amounts to the Named Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of

22 the Effective Date via check sent by certified U.S. mail to the address provided by Class Counsel.

23 Half of each amount shall be allocated as wages, and half as prejudgment interest. Best Buy shall

24 withhold appropriate taxes, pay the employer’s share of taxes, and issue a W-2 to each Named

25 Plaintiff for the amount designated as wages, and shall issue a 1099 for the remainder. 26 IX. NAMED PLAINTIFF SERVICE PAYMENTS

27

In recognition of the Named Plaintiffs’role in bringing and prosecuting this action,

28 including the provision of information to counsel for Plaintiffs, assisting with disclosures to Best

- 18 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 21 of 28

1 Buy, responding to Best Buy’s discovery requests, and appearing and testifying at depositions

2 noticed by Best Buy, Class Counsel shall file a motion for an award of service payments of no

3 more than $10,000 for each Named Plaintiff to be paid by Best Buy, which motion shall be heard

4 at the time of the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel shall file this motion not

5 later than two weeks (14 days) after entry of the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. Best Buy

6 shall not oppose this motion. The amount of each service payment will be determined by the

7 Court.

8

The validity of this Consent Decree does not depend on the Court’s approval of service

9 payments to the Named Plaintiffs. If the Court reduces or denies the motion for service

10 payments, the Court may still grant final approval to the Consent Decree.

11

If approved by the Court, Best Buy shall pay the approved service payment amounts to the

12 Named Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date via check sent by certified U.S.

13 mail to the address provided by Class Counsel. Best Buy shall issue a 1099 for the full amount. 14 X. ATTORNEYS’FEES AND COSTS

15

Best Buy has agreed to pay Class Counsel reasonable attorneys’fees and costs incurred in

16 connection with this matter up to and including the date of Final Approval of this Consent

17 Decree, in an amount to be determined by the Court, not to exceed a total of $9,999,999,

18 constituting almost $2 million in costs, and the balance of what is not paid in costs in fees

19

Class Counsel shall file a motion for an award of reasonable attorneys’fees and costs, not

20 to exceed a total of $ 9,999,999, almost $2 million in costs and approximately $8 million in fees,

21 to be heard at the time of the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel shall file this

22 motion not later than two weeks (14 days) after entry of the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order.

23 Best Buy shall not oppose this motion.

24

The validity of this Consent Decree does not depend on the Court’s award of reasonable

25 attorneys’fees and costs to Class Counsel. If the Court reduces or denies the motion for

26 attorneys’fees and costs, the Court may still grant final approval to the Consent Decree.

27

Best Buy shall pay any amounts due pursuant to this section and any Order of the Court

28 within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date by wiring the appropriate amount to a bank

- 19 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 22 of 28

1 account designated for such purposes by Class Counsel. 2 XI. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

3

The Parties will submit this Consent Decree to the Court, and request (1) certification of

4 three injunctive relief Classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for settlement

5 purposes only, (2) preliminary approval of the terms of the Consent Decree, and (3) approval of

6 the steps to be taken to obtain Final Approval. The Parties will request that the Court enter a

7 Preliminary Approval Order, substantially in form of Exhibit B.

8

Counsel for the Parties shall distribute the Notice described above in Section III not later

9 than two weeks (14 days) after entry of the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. In addition,

10 Class Counsel shall file motions for attorneys’fees and costs and Named Plaintiff service

11 payments not later than two weeks (14 days) after entry of the Court’s Preliminary Approval

12 Order. 13 XII. CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS

14

Any Class Member who wishes to object to this Consent Decree or otherwise to be heard

15 concerning this settlement, shall timely inform Class Counsel, counsel for Best Buy, and the

16 Court in writing of his or her intent to object to this Consent Decree and/or appear at the Final

17 Approval and Fairness Hearing by following the procedures set forth in the Notice. The objection

18 date shall be set at least 35 days after the date on which Notice is distributed, and shall be after

19 the date that Class Counsel files their motions for attorneys’fees and costs and Named Plaintiff

20 service payments. 21 XIII. FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING

22

On the date set forth in the Notice, the Court shall hold the Final Approval and Fairness

23 Hearing.

24

The Parties shall request that, if the Court approves the Consent Decree at the Final

25 Approval and Fairness hearing, it enter the Final Approval Order in the form proposed as Exhibit

26 C hereto, and the Final Judgment in the form proposed as Exhibit D hereto.

27 //

28 //

- 20 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 23 of 28

1 XIV. APPLICABLE LAW

2

The Parties agree that this Consent Decree shall be in all respects interpreted, enforced,

3 and governed by and under Federal law and, to the extent that resort must be had to State law, by

4 the law of the State of California. 5 XV. NO THIRD PARTIES

6

Enforcement of this Consent Decree shall be prosecuted by Class Counsel or Counsel for

7 Best Buy only, not third parties. Class Counsel shall meet and confer with Counsel for Best Buy

8 prior to commencement of any enforcement proceedings. 9 XVI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT / AMENDMENT

10

The Parties agree that this Consent Decree constitutes their entire agreement, and fully

11 supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements or understandings between the

12 Parties. Prior to Final Approval, this Decree may be amended or modified only by an agreement

13 in writing and signed by counsel for all Parties. Following Final Approval, no modification of

14 this Consent Decree shall be effective unless it is pursuant to Court Order. 15 XVII. FAILURE TO OBTAIN FINAL APPROVAL

16

In the event that this Consent Decree does not become final and effective in its current

17 form, for whatever reason, this entire Consent Decree, including its exhibits, shall become null

18 and void and of no force or effect. In that event, neither side shall make any arguments in the

19 Civil Action based on any papers submitted in connection with the settlement process, or any

20 Preliminary Approval Order entered as part of the settlement process. 21 XVIII. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS

22

The Parties agree that the Consent Decree may be executed in counterparts, each of which

23 shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same

24 instrument. 25 XIX. CONFIDENTIALITY

26

All proprietary and confidential documents or information that have previously been

27 provided to Class Counsel and/or the Named Plaintiffs as of the date this Decree is executed shall

28 be treated as, and thereafter remain, confidential. Those documents and information shall not be

- 21 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 24 of 28

1 disclosed to anyone other than the Court or agreed-upon mediator or special master in connection

2 with any proceeding to enforce any provision of this Decree. If such disclosure is deemed

3 necessary by Class Counsel, Class Counsel shall identify and disclose to Best Buy such

4 documents and information deemed necessary to disclose at least ten (10) business days prior to

5 filing such documents with the Court, mediator, or special master, and, if Best Buy so requests,

6 shall seek permission to file said documents with this Court, mediator, or special master under

7 seal. All the files, records, discovery, investigation, work papers and any other document,

8 whether electronic or written, that describes or contains any assessment of the employment

9 practices of Best Buy or which describes a condition, act or event at any Best Buy store (with the

10 exception of documents that were publicly filed with the Court) shall not be made available to or

11 transferred to any other person and shall be kept and maintained by Class Counsel inviolate.

12 Class Counsel warrant to Best Buy that they shall not produce their files, or any portion thereof

13 (with the exception of documents that were publicly filed with the Court), to any other person

14 unless compelled to do so by a formal legal process in which event Class Counsel shall promptly

15 notify counsel for Best Buy of that event. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent Class Counsel

16 from using any information obtained in the course of this case in connection with any action

17 necessary to enforce or maintain the Decree, or in connection with any claim of professional

18 negligence brought against Class Counsel.

19

Within sixty (60) days of the expiration of the term of this Decree, all proprietary and

20 confidential documents or information provided to Class Counsel by Best Buy and designated as

21 “Confidential”or a similar designation pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement executed by the

22 Parties and all copies of such documents or information shall be destroyed, except that Class

23 Counsel may maintain copies of all documents filed with the Court. Certification of such

24 destruction shall be provided to Counsel for Best Buy.

25

Other than necessary disclosures made to the Court, including the public filing of this

26 Consent Decree and the Class Notice attached thereto, the Parties’settlement negotiations and all

27 related information shall be held strictly confidential by Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs,

28 and shall not be disclosed to any third parties (including the media). Notwithstanding the

- 22 -

CONSENT DECREE CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 25 of 28

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 26 of 28

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 27 of 28

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 355-1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 28 of 28

 
 Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 1 of 35

1 James M. Finberg (SBN 114850) Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709)
2 Caroline P. Cincotta (SBN 261056) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
3 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108
4 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
5
6

Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) Lindsay Nako (SBN 239090) Angelica K. Jongco (SBN 244374) LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER &
JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839

7
Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716) 8 Daniel M. Hutchinson (SBN 239458)
9 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P.
10 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
11 Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement 13 Classes

Todd M. Schneider (SBN 158253) Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151) Andrew P. Lee (SBN 245903) SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY, L.L.P. 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16

JASMEN HOLLOWAY, AMY GARCIA, 17 CHERYL CHAPPEL, ERIC

Case No. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

BLACKSHER, JESSICA TREAS, 18 LAWRENCE SANTIAGO, JR.,
MUEMBO MUANZA, MAURICE 19 CALHOUN, and NICHOLAS DIXON, on

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS AND EXPENSES

behalf of themselves and all others 20 similarly situated,

21

Plaintiffs,

Date: November 9, 2011 Time: 9:00 A.M.

22 v.

Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

23 BEST BUY CO., INC. and BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,
24
Defendants. 25

26

27

28

933754.1

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 2 of 35

1

NOTICE OF MOTION

2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 9, 2011 at 9:00 A.M., or as soon thereafter as

4 the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, 1301 Clay Street,

5 Oakland, California 94612, Courtroom 3, Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court for an

6 Order awarding $9,999,999 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs. This motion is based upon

7 the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declarations of Eve Cervantez, Bill Lann Lee,

8 Jeffrey Lewis, Kelly Dermody, and Guy Wallace filed herewith, the detailed attorney time

9 records submitted to the Court for in camera review, the pleadings and discovery on file in this

10 action, and the arguments of Counsel presented to Court at the hearing of this Motion. Best Buy

11 does not oppose the requested award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

12 Respectfully Submitted,
13
14
15
16
17
18 Dated: August 17, 2011
19

James M. Finberg (SBN 114850) Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709) Caroline P. Cincotta (SBN 261056) ALTSHULER BERZON L.L.P. 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
By:_____/s/ Eve H. Cervantez_________

20

21

Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716)

22

Daniel M. Hutchinson (SBN 239458)

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &

23

BERNSTEIN, L.L.P.

275 Battery Street, 29th Floor

24

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 25
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

26

27 28
933754.1

Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) Lindsay Nako (SBN 239090) Angelica K. Jongco (SBN 244374)

-1-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 3 of 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
933754.1

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
Todd M. Schneider (SBN 158253) Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151) Andrew P. Lee (SBN 245903) SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY, L.L.P. 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Classes

-2-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 4 of 35

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1

3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................2

4

A. The Proposed Consent Decree Provides Extensive

5

Injunctive Relief...............................................................................................2

6 1. Hiring, Promotions, and Assignment.............................................2
7 2. Exempt Compensation....................................................................3
8
3. Training............................................................................................4 9

10

4. Communication................................................................................4

11

5. Evaluation of Managers...................................................................4

12

6. Complaint Process............................................................................4

13

7. Monitoring and Enforcement of the Decree...................................5

14

8. No Release of Claims for Monetary Relief Or

15

Individual Injunctive Relief.............................................................5

16

B. To Obtain These Results for the Class, Class Counsel

17

Reasonably Expended 40,300 Hours Having a

Lodestar Value of $15,983,694.00................................................................6

18

1. Class Counsel Filed Class EEOC Charges

19

and Conducted an Extensive Pre-Filing Investigation...................6

20

2. Class Counsel Filed a Class Action Complaint...............................6

21 3. Class Counsel Thoroughly Investigated The Facts

22

of This Case Through Formal Discovery And

Informal Investigation.......................................................................6

23

4. Class Counsel Worked Closely with a Statistician,

24

a Sociologist, Labor Economists, and I/O Psychologists

25

to Fully Understand and Effectively Present

the Class Claims.................................................................................7

26

5. Class Counsel Briefed and Argued Discovery

27

Motions and the Motion for Class Certification.............................8

28

933754.1

-i-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 5 of 35

1

6. Fully Informed of the Strengths and Weaknesses

(both Factual and Legal) of the Class Claims,

2

Class Counsel Negotiated Meaningful Injunctive

3

Relief That Will Advance Equal Employment

Opportunity at Best Buy...............................................................9

4

5 III. ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................................9

6 A. Class Counsel Is Statutorily Entitled to Fees and Costs.......................10
7

B. The Extensive and Meaningful Injunctive Relief Obtained

8

Supports the Reasonableness of the Attorneys’ Fee Award................11

9 C. Injunctive Relief Alone Supports a Fully

10

Compensatory Lodestar Fee Award......................................................13

11

D. The Attorneys’ Fee Class Counsel Seek is Reasonable.........................17

12 1. The Hours Class Counsel Expended

13

Were Reasonable..........................................................................18

14

2. Class Counsel’s Hourly Rates

Are Reasonable.............................................................................19 15

E. Class Counsel Should Be Reimbursed for their

16

Reasonable Litigation Costs and Expenses...........................................20

17

18 IV. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................25

19

20

21

22 23

24

25

26

27

28

933754.1

- ii -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 6 of 35

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

FEDERAL CASES

3

Ashker v. Sayre, 2011 WL 825713 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2011) ............................................. 23

4

ASIS Internet Services v. Optin Global, Inc.,

No. C-05-5124 JCS, 2008 WL 5245931 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) aff’d sub

5

nom. ASIS Internet Services v. Azoogle.com, Inc., 357 F. App’x. 112 (9th Cir.

2009) .............................................................................................................................1, 24 6

Automotive Products PLC v. Tilton Engineering, Inc.,

7

855 F.Supp. 1101 (C.D. Cal. 1994) ................................................................................ 25

8

Blanchard v. Bergeron,

489 U.S. 87 (1989)........................................................................................................... 13 9

Blum v. Stenson,

10

465 U.S. 886 (1984) ..............................................................................................1, 17, 20

11

Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Va. Department of Health &

Human Resources,

12

532 U.S. 598 (2001) ........................................................................................................ 11

13

Butler v. Home Depot, Inc.,

984 F.Supp. 1257 (N.D. Cal. 1997)................................................................................ 21

14

Butler v. Home Depot, Inc.,

15

1996 WL 421436 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 1996) ............................................................21, 22

16

Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles,

935 F.2d 1050 (1991) ...................................................................................................... 16

17

Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co.,

18

224 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). ..................................................................................... 17

19

City of Riverside v. Rivera,

477 U.S. 561 (1986) ..................................................................................................13, 14 20

Dang v. Cross,

21

422 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 16

22

Davis v. City & County of San Francisco,

976 F.2d 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) ..............................................................................1, 22, 23 23

Davis v. County of Los Angeles,

24

1974 WL 180 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 1974) .......................................................................... 14

25

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010)........................................................................................... 21 26

Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp.,

27

244 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................ 17

28

933754.1

- iii -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 7 of 35

1

Finkelstein v. Bergna,

804 F.Supp. 1235 (N.D. Cal. 1992)................................................................................ 25

2

Friend v. Kolodzieczak,

3

72 F.3d 1386 (9th Cir. 1995)........................................................................................... 14

4

Gates v. Deukmejian,

987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................ 15

5

Harris v. Marhoefer,

6

24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994)............................................................................................... 22

7

Hashimoto v. Dalton,

118 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 1997)........................................................................................... 15

8

Hensley v. Eckerhart,

9

461 U.S. 424 (1983). .................................................................................................10, 15

10

In re Immune Response Securities Litigation,

497 F.Supp.2d 1166 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................................ 24

11

In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig.,

12

2007 WL 2916472 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2007)....................................................................... 23

13

Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell International, Inc.,

426 F.3d 694 (3d Cir. 2005)............................................................................................ 25

14

Jordan v. Multnomah County,

15

815 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1987) ........................................................................................ 17

16

Mahach-Watkins v. Depee,

2009 WL 3401281 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2009)........................................................1, 2, 23

17

Marbled Murrelet v. Pacific Lumber Co.,

18

163 F.R.D. 308 (N.D. Cal. 1995).................................................................................... 16

19

McCoy v. Health Net, Inc.,

569 F.Supp.2d 448 (D.N.J. 2008)................................................................................... 22

20

In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litigation,

21

913 F.Supp. 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1996)..........................................................................24, 25

22

Millea v. Metro-North Railroad,

---F.3d---, 2011 WL 3437513 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2011) ................................................... 14

23

Missouri v. Jenkins,

24

491 U.S. 274 (1989) ..................................................................................................20, 23

25

Moore v. James H. Mathews & Co.,

682 F.2d 830 (9th Cir. 1982)........................................................................................... 17

26

Nobles v. MBNA Corp.,

27

2009 WL 1854965 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2009) ............................................................... 24

28

933754.1

- iv -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 8 of 35

1

In re Nucorp Energy, Inc.,

764 F.2d 655 (9th Cir.1985)............................................................................................ 17

2

Oviatt By and Through Waugh v. Pearce,

3

954 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................ 17

4

Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Windall,

51 F.3d 1179 (3rd Cir.1995) ........................................................................................... 15

5

Rosenfeld v. Southern Pac. Co.,

6

519 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1975).....................................................................................11, 15

7

Schwarz v. Sec. of Health & Human Services,

73 F.3d 895 (1995). ......................................................................................................... 14

8

Sorenson v. Mink,

9

239 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................14, 15

10

Staton v. Boeing,

327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003 ............................................................................................ 10

11

Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc.,

12

803 F.Supp. 259 (N.D. Cal. 1992) .................................................................................. 21

13

Texas State Teachers Association v. Garland Sch. District,

489 U.S. 782 (1989) ........................................................................................................ 11

14

Trustees of Const. Industrial & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Redland

15

Insurance Co.,

460 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................ 23

16

Wal-Mart v. Dukes,

17

131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011) ...............................................................................................21, 22

18

In re Washington Public Power Supply System Sec. Litigation, 1

9 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994)............................................................................................. 20

19

Webb v. Sloan,

20

330 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 16

21

DOCKETED CASES

22

Californians for Disability Rights v. Cal. Department of Transportation,

23

N.D. Cal. No. 06-05125 SBA ......................................................................................... 14

24

Cherry v. City College of San Francisco,

No. 04-4981 WHA (N.D. Cal. 2006) ............................................................................. 15

25

Lopez v. San Francisco Unified School District,

26

No. 99-03260 SI (N.D. Cal. 2005).................................................................................. 15

27

Rosenberg v. International Bus. Machines Corp.,

No. C-06-0430 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2007)....................................................................... 22

28

933754.1

-v-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 9 of 35

1

FEDERAL STATUTES

2

42 U.S.C. §1981 ...........................................................................................................6, 10, 13

3

42 U.S.C. §1988 ..............................................................................................................passim

4

42 U.S.C. §1988(c) ................................................................................................................ 11

5

42 U.S.C. §2000e-5............................................................................................... 1, 11, 20, 22

6

28 U.S.C. § 1920 ................................................................................................................1, 23

7 STATE STATUTES
8 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1032 .............................................................................................11, 20
9 Cal. Govt. Code §12989.2 ..................................................................................................... 11
10 MISCELLANEOUS
11

12

S. Watkins, The Black O: Racism and Redemption In An American Corporate

Empire (1997) .................................................................................................................. 13

13

S. Sturm, Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural

14

Approach, 101 Columbia L. Rev. 458......................................................................12, 13

15

A. Kalev, F. Dobbin, et al., Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the

Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies,

16

71 Am. Sociological Rev. 589 ........................................................................................ 13

17

18

19

20

21

22 23

24

25

26

27

28

933754.1

- vi -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 10 of 35

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

Class Counsel Altshuler Berzon LLP; Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Lewis,

3 Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson P.C.; and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP

4 have obtained extensive and meaningful injunctive relief for a Settlement Class of well over 5 55,000 female, African-American, and Latino employees of Best Buy. The comprehensive

6 injunctive relief directly addresses the discriminatory policies and practices that Plaintiffs targeted

7 in this lawsuit, and will ensure that women, African-Americans, and Latinos are treated fairly by

8 Best Buy in hiring, assignment to desirable jobs, promotions, and exempt compensation. Over its

9 four-year term, the Decree will open highly valuable job opportunities not just to members of the

10 Class but to members of the public. To obtain this important relief, Class Counsel collectively 11 devoted over 40,300 hours of time worth $15,983,694.00 (after substantial reductions for billing

12 judgment and removal of time spent unsuccessfully defending against Defendant’s Motion for

13 Judgment on the Pleadings) and almost two million dollars in costs to this litigation on behalf of

14 the Class. Class Counsel have not been paid for any of their fees and costs in this lawsuit. Under

15 the fee-shifting statutes at issue here, they would be entitled to recover this entire amount.

16

Pursuant to the independently negotiated fee section of the Consent Decree, Class Counsel

17 are seeking attorneys’ fees and costs of $9,999,999, which Best Buy has agreed to pay if

18 approved by the Court. After reimbursement of costs and expenses in the amount of

19 $1,836,858.67, that sum will only pay Class Counsel for 51 percent of their collective lodestar.

20

Class Counsel are statutorily entitled to a reasonable fee, generally set at the “lodestar”

21 amount – that is, hours reasonably expended on the lawsuit times the marketplace rates charged

22 for attorneys of comparable experience and expertise. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k); 42 U.S.C. 23 §1988(b); see Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984). Accordingly, after reaching agreement

24 regarding injunctive relief and the amount to be paid to the Named Plaintiffs to resolve their

25 individual claims, Best Buy and Class Counsel negotiated a reasonable amount for attorneys’ fees

26 and reimbursement of costs arising from Best Buy’s potential exposure for prevailing party

27 attorneys’ fees and costs. The attorneys’ fee amount negotiated by the parties and requested by

28 Class Counsel is easily fair and reasonable.

933754.1

-1-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 11 of 35

1

The $1,836,858.67 in reimbursement of costs and expenses sought by Class Counsel is

2 also fair and reasonable. Each of the costs and expenses for which reimbursement is sought was

3 expended to advance the prosecution of the class claims. Here, the largest expenses were for

4 experts ($1,116,547.63), for setting up and maintaining document databases ($190,807.16), and 5 for transcripts ($150,198.50). All of the costs for which reimbursement are sought are of the type

6 regularly billed to paying clients.

7 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

8

A. The Proposed Consent Decree Provides Extensive Injunctive Relief.

9

Class Counsel’s diligent work has led to a Proposed Consent Decree that provides

10 extensive injunctive relief. The proposed injunctive relief requires Best Buy to implement

11 comprehensive affirmative remedies that directly address the specific policies that Plaintiffs

12 believe led to the disparities in hiring, assignment, promotion, and exempt compensation that

13 Plaintiffs challenged in this lawsuit. It also requires Best Buy to designate a person to be in

14 charge of its diversity efforts; makes improvements in Best Buy’s complaint process and in

15 training of managers; and provides for effective monitoring and enforcement.

16

1. Hiring, Promotions, and Assignment

17

Best Buy has developed and will continue to use standardized selection procedures

18 (including using new interview guides prepared by an industrial organizational psychologist [“I/O

19 psychologist”] based on job analyses prepared by an I/O psychologist) for all retail store hiring,

20 initial and subsequent job assignment, and for promotions to supervisor or exempt manager

21 positions. Class Counsel retained their own, independent I/O psychologist who reviewed the new

22 interview guides and found them materially improved from the older interview guides challenged

23 by Plaintiffs. Cervantez Decl. ¶37. Best Buy will make material changes to these selection

24 procedures only with the approval of an I/O psychologist and notification to the Court and Class

25 Counsel. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Sections II.C, D, I.

26

Best Buy will designate a qualified individual whose primary purpose will be to oversee

27 Best Buy’s processes for encouraging the recruitment and retention of qualified diverse

28

933754.1

-2-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 12 of 35

1 management candidates, including qualified African Americans, Latinos, and women, throughout

2 the company. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.C.5.

3

Best Buy will post all open senior, supervisor, and exempt manager positions on an

4 electronic system accessible to all Best Buy store-level employees no less than five days before 5 the position is filled. Although Best Buy will be excused from the posting requirement in the

6 case of business necessity, business necessity will not include preference for a particular

7 candidate or urgency to fill a position. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.D.3.

8

Best Buy will include with every job posted on the company’s online application system a

9 clear description of the position’s duties and the required qualifications. Consent Decree (Dkt.

10 355-1), Section II.C.4.

11

Best Buy will create an electronic process for current store-level employees to register

12 their interest in any full-time, senior, supervisor, or exempt position, and will remind employees

13 to renew their interest at 6-month intervals. Before selecting outside applicants or employees

14 who have not registered an interest, managers will be required to consider employees who have

15 registered their interest through this system. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.D.1.

16

Best Buy will also implement processes to increase the pool of African American, Latino,

17 and female employees qualified for promotion to management at all its retail stores by increasing

18 training opportunities, and will continue to ensure that any training programs and formal

19 mentoring opportunities provided will be available to all employees regardless of race or gender,

20 except when such opportunities are targeted at minority or female employees. Consent Decree

21 (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.D.5.

22

Best Buy will explicitly train managers that Best Buy’s marketing strategies should not be

23 interpreted to influence or guide Best Buy’s hiring, recruitment, job assignment, transfer,

24 promotions, or compensation practices. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.F.3.

25

2. Exempt Compensation

26

Best Buy will retain an I/O psychologist or outside compensation specialist to review Best

27 Buy’s compensation policies and make recommendations to Best Buy. Best Buy will train its

28 managers on the use of any tools developed by this consultant. Best Buy will review the

933754.1

-3-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 13 of 35

1 compensation of exempt managers not less than once annually to ensure that the company is

2 complying with its non-discrimination policies. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.E.

3

3. Training

4

Within 6 months of the date the Decree becomes effective, Best Buy will train all its

5 General Managers regarding the terms of the Decree pertaining to hiring, promotions, the registry

6 system, job postings, the complaint procedure, the company’s diversity policies, and the

7 distinction between customer marketing and employee staffing. Best Buy will also provide the

8 following training: all new hires will be trained on the company’s non-discrimination, anti-

9 harassment, and anti-retaliation policies; all employees will be trained on use of the registry

10 system; supervisors and managers will receive annual diversity trainings; and staff involved in 11 hiring and promotions will be trained on use of the selection procedures, including the company’s

12 interest in diversity. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Sections II.C, D, and F.

13

4. Communication

14

Best Buy will continuously post its non-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-

15 retaliation policies on the company’s intranet website, along with an annual message from the

16 CEO. A high ranking Best Buy officer will make a statement in support of these policies at 17 annual regional or national meetings attended by store General Managers during the term of the

18 Decree. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.B.

19

5. Evaluation of Managers

20

Best Buy will evaluate all supervisors, exempt store managers, and district managers

21 annually on their ability to manage a diverse workforce, including their compliance with the

22 terms of the Consent Decree. An I/O psychologist will advise Best Buy on how best to conduct 23 and weigh these evaluations. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.H.

24

6. Complaint Process

25

Best Buy will continue to provide a procedure for employees or job applicants to report

26 discrimination or retaliation on the basis of race, color, national origin, or gender, or alleged

27 violations of the Consent Decree. This procedure will be communicated to new hires and posted

28 on the company’s intranet website continuously, and on the intranet home page for 7 consecutive

933754.1

-4-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 14 of 35

1 days at least once annually. In cases where a complaint is substantiated, Best Buy’s policy will

2 be to impose appropriate discipline, up to and including discharge. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1),

3 Section II.G.

4

7. Monitoring and Enforcement of the Decree

5

The term of the Decree is four years from the date the Decree becomes effective. Consent

6 Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.M. Best Buy will make good faith best efforts to implement the

7 provisions of the Decree as soon as reasonably practicable. If Best Buy requires more than 12

8 months to fully implement the Decree, the term will be extended with respect to the specific

9 provisions not yet implemented by the additional time over 12 months required for

10 implementation. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.L.

11

Best Buy will designate an officer (“Monitor”) who will oversee Best Buy’s policies and

12 practices to ensure compliance with the Decree. The Monitor will have access to statistical data

13 necessary to ensure that the company is complying with the terms of the Decree in its hiring, job

14 assignment, promotion, and compensation practices. Within 6 months after the Decree becomes

15 effective, and annually thereafter for the term of the Decree, the Monitor will file a Certificate of

16 Compliance with the Court. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.I. In addition, Best Buy’s 17 corporate audit department will regularly audit to ensure compliance with the terms of the Decree.

18 Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Sections II.C.2., II.D.1.d., II.D.3.c., II.E.3., II.F.5.

19

The Court will retain jurisdiction during the term of the Decree to enforce its provisions.

20 Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section II.K.

21

8. No Release of Claims for Monetary Relief Or Individual Injunctive

Relief

22

23

The class release is only for class-wide systemic injunctive relief. Class members have

24 not released claims for monetary relief or individual injunctive relief. Consent Decree (Dkt. 35525 1), Section V.

26

27

28

933754.1

-5-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 15 of 35

1

B. To Obtain These Results for the Class, Class Counsel Reasonably Expended

40,300 Hours Having a Lodestar Value of $15,983,694.00. 2

3

Class counsel (even after the deletion of substantial time in the exercise of billing

4 judgment and the time spent opposing Best Buy’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on 5 which Class Counsel did not prevail) expended more than 40,300 hours, having a lodestar value

6 of $15,983,694.00, on this litigation. Declaration of Eve Cervantez (“Cervantez Decl.”) ¶7, Ex.

7 C; Dermody Decl. Ex. C; Lee Decl. Ex. C; Wallace Decl. Ex. C.

8

1. Class Counsel Filed Class EEOC Charges and Conducted an Extensive

Pre-Filing Investigation. 9

10

Prior to filing the initial complaint, Class Counsel conducted an extensive pre-filing

11 investigation that included interviews of dozens of Best Buy employees at several stores.

12 Cervantez Decl. ¶8. Class counsel also retained an expert labor economist to review Best Buy

13 employment and demographic data before filing suit. Id. Class Counsel then filed administrative 14 charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission between April and December of

15 2005 on behalf of Named Plaintiffs Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Muembo

16 Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, and Nicholas Dixon. Id.

17

2. Class Counsel Filed a Class Action Complaint.

18

Class Counsel filed the initial class action complaint on December 8, 2005. The Third

19 Amended Complaint, filed on January 6, 2009, alleged that Best Buy denied employment, 20 desirable job assignments, promotions/transfers, and equal exempt compensation to African

21 Americans; denied desirable job assignments, promotions/transfers, and equal exempt

22 compensation to women; and denied desirable job assignments and promotion/transfers to Latino 23 employees of Best Buy retail stores in the United States. (Dkt. No. 142-43) Based on these

24 allegations, Plaintiffs asserted disparate impact and treatment claims for race and gender

25 discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; race discrimination claims under 26 42 U.S.C. §1981 (as to the Latino and African-American classes); and violations of the California

27 Fair Employment and Housing Act (as to those class members who worked in California during

28 the class period).

933754.1

-6-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 16 of 35

1

3. Class Counsel Thoroughly Investigated The Facts of This Case

Through Formal Discovery And Informal Investigation.

2

3

Class Counsel engaged in a broad and thorough investigation of the claims of the Classes.

4 Class Counsel propounded extensive written discovery, including 15 sets of Requests for

5 Production of Documents, four sets of Interrogatories, and one set of Requests for Admission.

6 Cervantez Decl. ¶¶10, 13. In response to these discovery requests, Best Buy produced

7 approximately 1.5 million documents, totaling over 12 million pages, and produced

8 comprehensive employment data covering approximately 500,000 Best Buy employees. Id. ¶¶10,

9 19. Class Counsel have expended thousands of hours thoroughly reviewing and coding the

10 documents produced. Id. ¶12. Class Counsel also took 23 depositions of Rule 30(b)(6) designees

11 and 10 depositions of additional fact witnesses, and defended over 50 depositions taken by

12 Defendants. Id. ¶¶16-17.

13

Class Counsel also engaged in extensive informal discovery. Counsel spoke with civil

14 rights organizations about discrimination at Best Buy, interviewed hundreds of current and former

15 Best Buy employees regarding their experiences, and gathered over 100 declarations from these

16 potential class members. Id. ¶18.

17

The detailed review of documents, the 30(b)(6) and fact witness depositions, and the

18 interviews of potential class members were essential to Class Counsel’s efforts to understand Best

19 Buy’s corporate and store hierarchy and employment policies and practices. This analysis was

20 necessary both to move for class certification and to fashion injunctive relief that is carefully

21 calibrated to Best Buy’s policies and procedures. Id. ¶¶9, 11, 13, 16, 18.

22

Class Counsel also devoted many hours to working with the Named Plaintiffs to respond

23 to the numerous written discovery requests Defendants propounded to the Named Plaintiffs. Id.

24 ¶14.

25

4. Class Counsel Worked Closely with a Statistician, a Sociologist, Labor

Economists, and I/O Psychologists to Fully Understand and Effectively

26

Present the Class Claims.

27

Class Counsel retained three testifying experts − statistician Dr. Richard Drogin,

28 sociologist Dr. Barbara Reskin, and labor economist Dr. Jonathan Leonard, to analyze Best Buy’s

933754.1

-7-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 17 of 35

1 personnel data and practices. Cervantez Decl. ¶¶19-26. Drs. Drogin and Reskin produced

2 extensive reports. Dr. Drogin’s statistical analysis was essential to demonstrating a disparate

3 impact on Class Members and a pattern and practice of discrimination. Id. ¶21. Dr. Reskin’s

4 sociological report allowed Plaintiffs to identify those policies and practices at Best Buy that led 5 to discrimination and anticipated Best Buy’s opposition on these same points. Id. ¶25. Best Buy

6 deposed each of these experts twice. Id. ¶¶19, 22. In response to Plaintiffs’ experts’ reports,

7 Best Buy submitted eleven reports from six experts, one of which they subsequently withdrew.

8 Id. ¶¶ 20, 23-24. Class Counsel retained Dr. Leonard to provide a rebuttal report, and defended

9 his deposition. Id. ¶26. Class Counsel took eight depositions of Defendants’ experts, and

10 prepared for but did not take a deposition of an expert that Best Buy withdrew less than a week 11 before his deposition was scheduled. Id. ¶¶20, 23-24.

12

Class Counsel also hired five consulting experts. Id. ¶¶23-24. In addition to a consulting

13 labor economist hired to review Best Buy employment data prior to the filing of the class

14 complaint, Class Counsel hired as consulting experts Dr. Tony Greenwald, Dr. Brian Nosek, and

15 Dr. Nita French to assist them in responding to and preparing for the depositions of the three

16 social science experts hired by Best Buy to rebut Dr. Reskin’s report. Id. ¶23. Class Counsel also 17 retained I/O Psychologist Michael Campion to assist with the deposition of the expert that Best

18 Buy designated and then withdrew. Id. ¶24. Dr. French, an I/O Psychologist, also assisted Class

19 Counsel with the negotiation of injunctive relief by examining Best Buy’s new interview guides,

20 and confirming that the new guides were a material improvement over the old ones. Id. ¶37.

21

5. Class Counsel Briefed and Argued Discovery Motions and the Motion

for Class Certification. 22

23

The parties engaged in active motion practice. In connection with written discovery,

24 Class Counsel filed five motions to compel, all of which were granted in whole or in part. Id.

25 ¶15. Of particular importance, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents

26 from four high-ranking corporate officers, and for the personnel files of class member witnesses.

27 Id. ¶15.

28

933754.1

-8-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 18 of 35

1

Class Counsel fully briefed and argued Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, then re-

2 briefed that motion after changes in the applicable law. Cervantez Decl. ¶¶29-33. In connection

3 with the class certification briefing, Class Counsel also briefed and argued in opposition to Best

4 Buy’s motions to strike the expert reports of Dr. Drogin and Dr. Reskin. Id. ¶30; Declaration of 5 Bill Lann Lee (“Lee Decl.”) ¶¶6, 8. Class Counsel also successfully opposed Defendants’

6 Motion to Strike their Second Motion for Class Certification. Cervantez Decl. ¶32.

7

6. Fully Informed of the Strengths and Weaknesses (both Factual and

Legal) of the Class Claims, Class Counsel Negotiated Meaningful

8

Injunctive Relief That Will Advance Equal Employment Opportunity

at Best Buy. 9

10

The Parties discussed settlement over the course of several years. Settlement discussions

11 took place in a number of in-person meetings and in many telephone conference calls. Cervantez

12 Decl. ¶36. Class Counsel drafted and then re-drafted and revised the injunctive relief proposals

13 and the Consent Decree. The parties exchanged many drafts about the terms of class-wide

14 injunctive relief. Id. ¶38. Only after agreement was reached on class-wide injunctive relief and

15 the release to be given by members of the Settlement Classes did the parties turn to the individual

16 claims of Named Plaintiffs. Id. ¶38. Only after the basic terms of settlement of the Named 17 Plaintiffs’ claims were also agreed upon did the parties negotiate attorneys’ fees and costs. Id.

18 ¶38. The Consent Decree is not contingent upon the Court’s approval of the full fee and cost

19 amount. Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1), Section X.

20 III. ARGUMENT

21

As prevailing parties, Plaintiffs are statutorily entitled to an award of fees and costs. The

22 parties separately negotiated fees and costs at arms’ length after injunctive relief was already 23 agreed upon. The attorneys’ fees and costs provided for in the Consent Decree are independent of

24 the injunctive relief. The requested fees and costs do not come from a common fund, so failure to

25 grant the full negotiated fees will not increase relief to the Classes.

26

Where, as here, the parties to a case involving a fee-shifting statute negotiated and settled

27 the amount of attorneys’ fees “the district court’s review [should] focus on the reasonableness of

28 the fee request under the lodestar calculation method.” Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 966 (9th

933754.1

-9-

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 19 of 35

1 Cir. 2003). “Absent some unusual explanation, a defendant,” fully informed and represented by

2 counsel, “would not agree in a class action settlement to pay out of its own pocket fees

3 measurably higher than it could conceivably have to pay were the fee amount litigated.” Id. For

4 that reason, “the court need not inquire into the reasonableness of the fees . . . with precisely the 5 same level of scrutiny as when the fee amount is litigated.” Id. The court will generally not find

6 negotiated attorneys’ fees unreasonable unless “the amount of fees [the defendant] agreed to pay

7 in the settlement agreement [is] distinctly higher than the fees class counsel could have been

8 awarded by the district court using the lodestar method.” Id.

9

The negotiated amount of attorneys’ fees in this case is easily fair and reasonable under

10 the lodestar method. Class Counsel has obtained substantial and meaningful injunctive relief that 11 directly addresses the specific policies challenged by Plaintiffs with respect to fairness in hiring,

12 assignment, promotions, and exempt compensation. The Consent Decree vindicates the purposes

13 of Title VII and will create better job opportunities for women, African-Americans, and Latinos.

14 Having achieved an “excellent result,” Class Counsel could have received a fully compensatory

15 fee. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983). Nonetheless, pursuant to the Consent

16 Decree, Class Counsel requests only reimbursement for reasonable costs and expenses and 17 payment of 51% of a reasonable lodestar fee.

18

A. Class Counsel Is Statutorily Entitled to Fees and Costs.

19

Plaintiffs’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees derives from three fee-shifting statutes. A

20 “prevailing party” in both a Title VII action and a suit under 42 U.S.C. §1981 is entitled to “a

21 reasonable attorney’s fee.” 2000e-5(k); 42 U.S.C. §§1988(b). In addition, a party who prevails

22 on a California Fair Employment and Housing Act claim is entitled to “reasonable attorney’s 23 fees.” Cal. Govt. Code §12989.2(a). Litigation costs and expenses are authorized by both federal

24 and state statutes. 42 U.S.C. §§1988(c), 2000e-5(k); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1032(b).

25

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs, who have obtained substantial injunctive relief in a court-

26 ordered consent decree, are prevailing parties. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West

27 Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (“[C]ourt-ordered consent decrees

28 create the ‘material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties’ necessary to permit an award

933754.1

- 10 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 20 of 35

1 of attorney’s fees” (citation omitted)); Rosenfeld v. Southern Pac. Co., 519 F.2d 527, 529 (9th

2 Cir. 1975) (obtaining injunctive relief renders a plaintiff a prevailing party under Title VII). A

3 party is deemed to have prevailed even if not all of the relief originally sought was obtained.

4 Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 791-92 (1989) (party need 5 receive only “some of the benefit. . . sought in bringing suit” to be a prevailing party).

6

B. The Extensive and Meaningful Injunctive Relief Obtained Supports the

Reasonableness of the Attorneys’ Fee Award. 7

8

Class Counsel has obtained significant injunctive relief on behalf of the Classes that

9 addresses the policies and practices that Plaintiffs have alleged to be discriminatory in this

10 litigation. Among other things, Defendants will be required to use improved, standardized 11 selection procedures, including professionally designed interview guides, for all hiring, 12 assignment and promotions, and cannot change these selection procedures without approval from 13 an I/O psychologist; must retain an I/O psychologist, whose qualifications have been provided to

14 Class Counsel, to examine and make recommendations to its exempt compensation practices and

15 train its supervisors on the implemented recommendations; must post all open senior, supervisor, 16 and exempt manager positions on an electronic system accessible to all Best Buy store-level 17 employees along with accurate description of the jobs; and must create an electronic registry by 18 which all current, store-level employees may register their interest in any full-time, senior, 19 supervisor, or exempt positions and must consider individuals who have expressed such an

20 interest before considering outside applicants or those who have not registered an interest. Best

21 Buy will explicitly train managers that “customer centricity” and other customer demographic 22 programs should not influence staffing decisions. It will also designate an individual whose 23 primary purpose will be to oversee Best Buy’s processes for encouraging the recruitment and 24 retention of qualified diverse candidates, and must make many significant improvements to the 25 training of supervisors and communication of policies on diversity. Best Buy will appoint a

26 monitor to ensure that these policies are carried out.

27

These changes to policies and practices are precisely those which both experts and courts

28 have found are most effective at increasing diversity within a company. For example, in Butler v.

933754.1

- 11 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 21 of 35

1 Home Depot, N.D.Cal. Case Nos. 94-4335, 95-2182 SI, the court approved a consent decree in a

2 Title VII gender discrimination class action that included, like the Decree here, creation of a

3 system for employees to register interest in jobs, publication of job openings, accountability of

4 managers for diversity, a designated individual responsible for diversity efforts within the 5 company, and ongoing monitoring. See, e.g., S. Sturm, Second Generation Employment

6 Discrimination: A Structural Approach, 101 Columbia L. Rev. 458, 509-20 (2001). In approving

7 the settlement, Judge Illston commended counsel for the excellent result and stated that the

8 “injunctive relief” obtained is “even more significant” than the monetary payment. Transcript,

9 Jan. 14, 1998, Final Approval Hearing, Butler v. Home Depot, Nos. 94-4335, 95-2182, at 17:11-

10 15, Cervantez Decl. Ex. G. As a result of the injunctive relief in that case, during the first three 11 years of the Consent Decree alone, the percentage of women in the job of sales associate jumped

12 from 16 to 22 percent (an increase of 4,200 female sales associates), the percentage of women

13 department supervisors increased from 15 to 19 percent (an increase of 450 female department

14 supervisors), the percentage of female assistant store managers increased from 15 to 20 percent

15 (an increase of approximately 200 female assistant store managers), and the percentage of female

16 store managers increased from 8 to 19 percent (an increase of approximately 30 store managers). 17 Cervantez Decl. Ex. K (Transcript of June 24, 2002 hearing in Butler v. Home Depot Nos. 94-

18 4335, 95-2182), at 13-14. During that period, Home Depot’s turnover in the jobs covered by the

19 Consent Decree dropped 11.4 percent, id. at 11, which caused Home Depot to continue to use the

20 Decree procedures after the Decree term expired. As a result, female representation continued to

21 increase after the Decree expired. Although the Decree was focused on increasing gender

22 diversity, the Decree procedures also resulted in a substantial increase in minority managers. 23 Sturm, 101 Columbia L. Rev. at 518-19.

24

Similarly, after implementation of a consent decree in Haynes v. Shoney’s, Inc., No. PCA

25 89-30093 (N.D. Fla. 1993), which required, among other things, posting of jobs and job

26 descriptions, publicizing and strengthening complaint procedures, establishing responsible

27 individuals within the company, and ongoing monitoring, there was a substantial increase in

28 African-American restaurant managers. S. Watkins, The Black O: Racism and Redemption In An

933754.1

- 12 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 22 of 35

1 American Corporate Empire, 230-232 (1997); Haynes v. Shoney’s Inc., No. PCA 89-30093,

2 Consent Decree, Sections VI, IX, XI-XIII. (Available at http://bit.ly/qqnUDG). See also A.

3 Kalev, F. Dobbin, et al., Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate

4 Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies, 71 Am. Sociological Rev. 589 (2006) (extensive study 5 of actual company operations demonstrated that systems of accountability, such as creation of a

6 staff position for diversity, are most effective at creating diversity in management). The

7 injunctive relief obtained by Plaintiffs here is similarly well-designed and highly likely to create

8 valuable job opportunities and increased compensation for women, African Americans, and

9 Latinos at Best Buy.

10

C. Injunctive Relief Alone Supports a Fully Compensatory Lodestar Fee Award.

11

Injunctive relief such as that obtained in this case is of central importance in actions under

12 Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981. A major purpose of attorneys’ fee awards in civil rights cases is

13 to encourage pursuit of injunctive relief that has “benefits...for the named plaintiff and for society

14 at large” regardless of whether monetary relief is also pursued. Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S.

15 87, 95-96 (1989). In passing 42 U.S.C. §1988, which provides for attorneys’ fee awards to

16 prevailing parties under §1981, Congress specifically noted as appropriate models for

17 interpretation of the statute cases in which plaintiffs had “received substantial attorney’s fees”

18 while obtaining only injunctive relief.1 City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 576 (1986).

19 In particular, Congress provided as an example of an appropriate fee award a Title VII class

20 action, Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 1974 WL 180 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 1974), in which the

21 Court concluded that “plaintiffs’ counsel are entitled to an award of fees for all time reasonably

22 expended” where plaintiff had obtained substantial injunctive relief. Riverside, 477 U.S. at 576

23 (quoting Davis, 1974 WL 180, at *2). The Supreme Court therefore concluded in Riverside, a

24 case interpreting the attorneys’ fee provision in §1988, that attorneys’ fees are “not conditioned

25 upon and need not be proportionate to an award of money damages.” Id.; see also Millea v.

26 1 42 U.S.C. §1988, which provides for attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties under §1981, was
27 patterned after the Title VII attorneys’ fee provision, and the two provisions are generally construed in the same manner. Schwarz v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 901 n.2
28 (1995).

933754.1

- 13 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 23 of 35

1 Metro-North Railroad, ---F.3d---, 2011 WL 3437513, at *10 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2011) (“The whole

2 purpose of fee-shifting statutes is to generate attorneys' fees that are disproportionate to the

3 plaintiff’s recovery” (emphasis in original)). Plaintiffs may obtain an award of fees that is

4 substantially higher than the monetary relief obtained because, “[r]egardless of the form of relief 5 he actually obtains, a successful civil rights plaintiff often secures important social benefits.”

6 Riverside, 477 U.S. at 574.

7

Consistent with these principles, courts regularly approve substantial attorneys’ fees

8 settlements in cases involving only injunctive relief. See, e.g., Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140,

9 1147 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that plaintiffs had obtained an “excellent result” in prison reform

10 case involving only injunctive relief and that plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable 11 attorneys’ fees based on more than 8000 hours expended on litigation with adjustment for

12 duplicative or inadequately documented time); Californians for Disability Rights v. Cal. Dep’t of

13 Transportation, N.D. Cal. No. 06-05125 SBA (Dkt. 528, 529) (approving attorneys’ fee award of

14 over $8 million in Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) case involving only injunctive relief)

15 (Cervantez Decl. Ex. H); Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1995) (approving

16 substantial attorneys’ fee award in case brought on behalf of Roman Catholic inmates and noting 17 that “[t]he fact that plaintiffs received no monetary relief is of no import”).

18

That Plaintiffs, while obtaining important injunctive relief, did not succeed in obtaining

19 damages in this lawsuit, is not itself a basis for reducing the reasonable lodestar fee. “A district

20 court should not reduce the lodestar, merely because the prevailing party did not receive the type

21 of relief that it requested.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1404 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis

22 added). The Supreme Court has explained that “a plaintiff who failed to recover damages but 23 obtained injunctive relief, or vice versa, may recover a fee award based on all hours reasonably

24 expended if the relief obtained justified that expenditure of attorney time.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at

25 435 n.11. It is thus an abuse of discretion to reduce the lodestar amount solely on the grounds

26 that a plaintiff has obtained injunctive relief but failed to obtain damages. See, e.g., Public

27 Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179 (3rd Cir.1995) (reversing

28

933754.1

- 14 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 24 of 35

1 as an abuse of discretion decision of district court to reduce lodestar amount by 50% where

2 plaintiffs had obtained injunctive relief, but had not obtained damages).

3

Instead, regardless of whether a plaintiff has recovered each type of relief sought,

4 “[w]here a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully 5 compensatory fee.” Hensley, at 435; see also Sorenson, 239 F.3d at 1147. Courts therefore have

6 not reduced attorneys’ fees awards in cases in which plaintiffs either failed to obtain damages at

7 trial or voluntarily dismissed their damages claims while obtaining substantial injunctive relief.

8 See, e.g., Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Co., 519 F.2d 527, 529-530 (9th Cir. 1975) (approving

9 substantial award of attorneys’ fees in Title VII action in which plaintiff failed to obtain damages

10 but obtained declaratory and injunctive relief); Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 678 (9th Cir. 11 1997) (approving award of substantial attorneys’ fees to Title VII claimant in administrative

12 action before EEOC because, despite the fact that she failed to receive backpay and reinstatement,

13 she obtained remedial measures that “not only benefited her personally, but also served to assist

14 persons like her . . . from being subjected to retaliatory actions”); Lopez v. San Francisco Unified

15 School Dist., No. 99-03260 SI (N.D. Cal. 2005) (Dkt. 676) and Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum of

16 Points and Authorities in Support of Award of Attorney’s Fees therein (Dkt. 667), at 15-17 (in 17 ADA action, awarding a total of nearly $6 million in fees in case in which plaintiffs originally

18 sought damages and injunctive relief but dismissed their damages claim before trial) (Cervantez

19 Decl. Ex. I); Cherry v. City College of San Francisco, No. 04-4981 WHA (N.D. Cal. 2006) (Dkt.

20 673) and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’

21 Fees therein (Dkt. 661), at 6 (in ADA action, granting application for attorneys’ fees of $1.66

22 million in its entirety in case in which plaintiffs initially sought both damages and declaratory and 23 injunctive relief and ultimately settled for injunctive relief) (Cervantez Decl. Ex. J).

24

On the other hand, it is true that when a plaintiff prevails on some, but not all, claims, a

25 reasonable lodestar may not include hours spent on claims that are both factually and legally

26 unrelated to the victorious claims, see Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 813 (9th Cir. 2005), and that

27 did not “contribute to the ultimate victory in the lawsuit.” Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles,

28 935 F.2d 1050, 1052 (1991). As discussed further below, Class Counsel have conservatively

933754.1

- 15 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 25 of 35

1 removed from their lodestar the hours spent opposing Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the

2 Pleadings with respect to the initial assignment claim, which turned on an exhaustion of

3 administrative remedies issue that was inapplicable to Plaintiffs’ other claims. See Webb v.

4 Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1169 (9th Cir. 2003) (court appropriately deducted hours spent on 5 unsuccessful claim advanced in summary judgment motion when it asserted a “separate legal

6 theory that was not tied to the facts”). Plaintiffs did, however, ultimately obtain relief that will

7 address discrimination in both initial and subsequent assignment. Cervantez Decl. ¶28. Thus,

8 Class Counsel could have appropriately requested compensation for these hours as well, but

9 chose not to.

10

Even were the Court to find that Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees award must also be reduced

11 because the Consent Decree does not include a damages award, it must only remove hours that

12 “did not contribute to the ultimate victory in this lawsuit.” Cabrales, 935 F.2d at 1052 (even

13 where a claim fails, if it advances success in the lawsuit, hours spent on it should be reimbursed);

14 Marbled Murrelet v. Pacific Lumber Co., 163 F.R.D. 308 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (time spent on

15 unsuccessful motion and preparing evidence ruled inadmissible nonetheless compensable because

16 they contributed in small way to plaintiffs’ ultimate success). The overwhelming majority of 17 Class Counsel’s time was spent investigating Best Buy’s allegedly discriminatory procedures and

18 policies and litigating class certification—efforts that contributed to obtaining the extensive

19 injunctive relief contained in the Consent Decree. And of course the threat of a damages award

20 must have weighed into Best Buy’s calculus of risk when it agreed to settle the case for extensive

21 injunctive relief for the next four years, rather than continuing to litigate. Cervantez Decl. ¶34.

22 Thus, those minimal hours spent calculating and litigating entitlement to damages should be fully 23 compensated. Class Counsel spent approximately 0.56% of its lodestar hours on issues related to

24 damages. Cervantez Decl. ¶34; Ex. E; Lee Decl. Ex. E. Were the Court to deduct these 226

25 hours, Class Counsel’s request for fees would still represent approximately 51 percent of their

26 reasonable lodestar.

27

28

933754.1

- 16 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 26 of 35

1

D. The Attorneys’ Fee Class Counsel Seek is Reasonable.

2

The negotiated attorneys’ fee provided for in the Consent Decree is reasonable. The

3 starting point for computing a prevailing party’s attorneys’ fee under the lodestar method is to

4 multiply the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a 5 reasonable hourly rate. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984); Caudle v. Bristow Optical

6 Co., 224 F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000). Class Counsel are entitled to be compensated for

7 “every item of service which, at the time rendered, would have been undertaken by a reasonable

8 and prudent lawyer to advance or protect his client’s interest.” Moore v. James H. Mathews &

9 Co., 682 F.2d 830, 839 (9th Cir. 1982). Class Counsel are entitled to be compensated for time

10 spent litigating the merits of this action, as well as time spent in preparing this motion for 11 attorneys’ fees (which represents a miniscule fraction of the total lodestar, see Cervantez Decl.

12 Ex. M2; Lee Decl. G2). In re Nucorp Energy, Inc., 764 F.2d 655, 659-60 (9th Cir.1985) (“In

13 statutory fee cases, federal courts, including our own, have uniformly held that time spent in

14 establishing the entitlement to and amount of the fee is compensable.”).

15

For lodestar awards, the hourly rate is “the prevailing market rate[] in the relevant

16 community.” Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. Once this “raw” lodestar figure has been determined, the 17 court “may, if circumstances warrant, adjust the lodestar to account for other factors which are

18 not subsumed within it.” Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1149 n.4 (9th Cir.

19 2001). “A strong presumption exists,” however, “that the lodestar figure represents a reasonable

20 fee” and adjustments will therefore not normally be made. Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815

21 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Oviatt By and

22 Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1992) (fees calculated by the lodestar 23 method are “presumptively reasonable”). Here, Class Counsel are not requesting any adjustment

24 to the reasonable lodestar, but have agreed as part of the settlement to accept far less than their

25 lodestar.

26

Here, the $9,999,999 in fees and expenses provided for in the Consent Decree will only

27 cover $8,163,140.33 of Class Counsel’s $15,983,694.00 lodestar, once the $1,836,858.67 in costs

28 and expenses are reimbursed. Cervantez Decl. ¶7. Accordingly, Class Counsel will only receive

933754.1

- 17 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 27 of 35

1 51 percent of their lodestar amount, even after exercising billing judgment and after removing

2 hours expended unsuccessfully opposing a Motion for Judgment On the Pleadings on one claim.

3 See Cervantez Decl. ¶¶ 7, 82; Lee Decl. ¶13; Lewis Dec ¶6; Wallace Decl. ¶¶13-17; Dermody

4 Decl. ¶¶13-14.

5

1.

The Hours Class Counsel Expended Were Reasonable.

6

In order to obtain substantial and important injunctive relief for a Settlement Class made

7 up of well over 55,000 people, Class Counsel spent many thousands of hours over six years

8 thoroughly investigating and vigorously litigating this case. Cervantez Decl. ¶48-80. The work

9 performed by Class Counsel is documented in contemporaneously maintained records of

10 attorneys, law clerks, and paralegals. Class Counsel have filed summary charts showing the total 11 hours spent by each timekeeper, and the detailed time records have been submitted for in camera

12 review pursuant to Local Rule 54-5(b)(2). Cervantez Decl. Exs. C, M1,M2; Lee Decl. Exs. C,

13 G1-G2; Wallace Decl. Exs. C, F; Dermody Decl. Exs. C, F. In all, after the exercise of billing

14 judgment and deletion of hours spent unsuccessfully opposing the Motion for Judgment on the

15 Pleadings, Class Counsel spent 40,300.25 hours on the litigation. Cervantez Decl. ¶7.

16

The tasks performed by Class Counsel included conducting an extensive pre-filing

17 investigation and preparing detailed EEOC charges; thoroughly interviewing hundreds of Best

18 Buy employees and obtaining more than 100 declarations; reviewing millions of pages of

19 documents produced by Best Buy; reviewing and analyzing with expert assistance data

20 concerning over 500,000 employees and applicants to Best Buy; working with a statistics expert,

21 several social science experts, and labor economists to identify disparate treatment and

22 discriminatory policies and practices; analyzing the reports of and deposing six expert witnesses 23 retained by Defendant; deposing Defendant’s corporate designees on a wide variety of topics,

24 including hiring, promotions, compensation, complaint procedures, HR procedures, training,

25 affirmative action, and diversity efforts; deposing additional Best Buy officers and employees

26 including those responsible for maintaining Best Buy’s internal statistics; propounding and

27 responding to dozens of discovery requests; defending depositions of the Named Plaintiffs,

28 declarants, and other class members whose depositions were noticed by Best Buy; drafting,

933754.1

- 18 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 28 of 35

1 arguing, and re-drafting a class certification brief and numerous supporting motions and

2 documents; and negotiating and drafting the Consent Decree. See Cervantez Decl. ¶¶8-38, 71;

3 Lee Decl. ¶8; Wallace Decl. ¶7; Dermody Decl. ¶8. These activities all assisted Counsel in

4 convincing Best Buy of the necessity of settlement and in crafting meaningful injunctive relief. 5 Class Counsel performed this work entirely on a contingent basis and have not been compensated

6 for their time. See Cervantez Decl. ¶¶81, 87; Lee Decl. ¶12 ; Wallace Decl. ¶12; Dermody Decl.

7 ¶¶18, 12.

8

The hours expended in pursuit of this litigation have been reasonable. Class Counsel were

9 efficient in litigating this case, and made efforts to avoid duplication and unnecessary work.

10 Cervantez Decl. ¶5; Wallace Decl.¶6; Dermody Decl.¶7. To the extent work was inefficient or 11 duplicative, Class Counsel have deleted that time from the lodestar submitted, in the exercise of

12 billing judgment, cutting 4649 from the total hours spent (a value of $1,765,994.50). See

13 Cervantez Decl. ¶¶6-7, 82, Ex. D; Lee Decl. ¶13, Ex. D; Lewis Decl. ¶6; Wallace Decl. ¶17, Ex.

14 D; Dermody Decl. ¶¶13, 16. This leaves a total of 40,300.25 lodestar hours. Counsel also have

15 not included hours spent on unsuccessfully opposing a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

16 with respect to the initial assignment claim (although the relief ultimately obtained in the Consent 17 Decree addresses initial as well as subsequent assignment). Consent Decree (Dkt. 355-1),

18 Sections II.C and D. Cervantez Decl. ¶¶6, 7, 82; Dermody Decl. ¶14.

19

2. Class Counsel’s Hourly Rates Are Reasonable.

20

The rates used to calculate the lodestar are also reasonable. The lodestar should be

21 calculated using hourly rates that are “the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.”

22 Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. Courts typically apply each attorney’s current rates for all hours of work 23 regardless of when performed in order to account for the delay in payment resulting from the

24 years it took to litigate the case. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 284 (1989) (court should

25 account for delay in payment by applying current rather than historic hourly rates); In re

26 Washington Public Power Supply System Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994). The

27 hourly rates used to calculate the lodestar in this case are the rates of counsel with similar

28 experience, reputation, and ability in the Bay Area. See Cervantez Decl. ¶79; Lee Decl. ¶11;

933754.1

- 19 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 29 of 35

1 Wallace Decl. ¶11; Dermody Decl. ¶¶10-11. Class Counsel have extensive experience litigating

2 complex employment discrimination class actions. Cervantez Decl. ¶73; Lee Decl. ¶¶4, 6;

3 Wallace Decl. ¶¶4, 6; Dermody Decl. ¶4. They have been recognized as top employment

4 lawyers. Cervantez Decl. ¶¶51-68, 73; Lee Decl. ¶¶4, 6; Wallace Decl. ¶¶4, 6; Dermody Decl. 5 ¶4, 6. Judges in this District and elsewhere have approved the reasonableness of Class Counsel’s

6 then-current hourly rates in similar cases, and clients have paid their rates. Cervantez Decl. ¶¶74-

7 78 and Ex. B; Lee Decl. ¶10 and Ex. B; Wallace Decl. ¶10 and Ex. B; Dermody Decl. ¶10 and

8 Ex. B.

9

Based on these hours and rates, Plaintiffs’ presumptively reasonable lodestar is

10 $15,983,694.00. Cervantez Decl. ¶7. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, however, Plaintiffs 11 seek only $9,999,999 for both attorney’s fees and expenses. Because costs are $1,836,858.67,

12 this leaves Class Counsel with $8,163,140.33 in fees, which is 51% of their lodestar amount.

13 Since Class Counsel’s request is only 51% of a presumptively reasonable lodestar, the requested

14 fees are easily reasonable under the lodestar method.

15

E. Class Counsel Should Be Reimbursed for their Reasonable Litigation Costs

and Expenses. 16

17

Class Counsel may recover costs under both federal and state law. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-

18 5(k); 42 U.S.C. §1988(b); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1032(b). In light of the complex nature of this

19 action, the costs sought here, which total $1,836,858.67, are reasonable. In making this motion

20 for attorney’s fees and costs, Class Counsel have complied with the Court’s standing orders

21 regarding Settlement of Securities Class Actions by providing receipts for all items larger than

22 $250, the reason for each expenditure, and legal authority supporting the compensability of each

23 item. As described in more detail in the accompanying declarations, Class Counsel seek recovery

24 of the following:

25

Experts/Consultants. By far the largest expenses in this case were the out-of-pocket fees

26 paid to three testifying experts and five consulting experts. Cervantez Decl. ¶40. As described

27 above, these experts’ work was vital to the case. See supra pp 7-8; Cervantez Decl. ¶¶40, 21, 25, 28 26. Plaintiffs in this circuit typically use expert social science testimony to support their claims

933754.1

- 20 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 30 of 35

1 on class certification and the merits. See, e.g., Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571,

2 602-03 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (noting that courts have “long accepted[] that properly analyzed

3 social science data . . . may support a plaintiff’s assertions that a claim is proper for class

4 resolution” and upholding district court’s reliance on social science expert testimony to support 5 certification of gender discrimination class action), reversed, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131

6 S. Ct. 2541 (2011); Butler v. Home Depot, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 1257, 1264-65 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

7 (denying motions to exclude testimony of social science experts at trial because such testimony

8 was relevant to plaintiffs’ disparate treatment and disparate impact claims); Butler v. Home

9 Depot, Inc., 1996 WL 421436, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 1996) (certifying gender discrimination

10 class action in which plaintiffs submitted testimony of social science expert in support of the 11 motion); Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 259, 301-03, 327 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (finding

12 testimony by plaintiffs’ social science expert at trial—similar to the type of social science

13 testimony offered by Plaintiffs here—to be consistent with evidence accepted by other courts and

14 to be persuasive of gender discrimination). And statisticians are invariably used in class action

15 pattern or practice and disparate impact casts. See, e.g., Dukes, 603 F.3d at 603-04 (9th Cir.

16 2010) (en banc) (noting that plaintiffs’ use of statistical evidence to demonstrate commonality is 17 “well established”), overturned on other grounds, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541; Stender,

18 803 F. Supp. at 295, 327 (finding Dr. Drogin to be a qualified expert in statistics in gender

19 discrimination class action); Butler, 984 F. Supp. at 1266; Butler, 1996 WL 421436, at *1, *3.

20 Plaintiffs incurred a total of $1,116,547.63 in out-of-pocket costs for experts. Best Buy expended

21 more than $5 million on its five testifying and one withdrawn expert – far more than Plaintiffs.

22 Cervantez Decl. ¶¶42, 41. Plaintiffs who prevail under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1988 may 23 receive reimbursement for expert fees, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k), 42 U.S.C. §1988(c), and courts

24 regularly award such fees. See Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 20 (9th Cir. 1994).

25

Plaintiffs also expended $5,737.50 on a consultant to assist in publicizing the case to class

26 members through a communications plan and initial press conference upon the filing of the

27 complaint. Cervantez Decl. ¶9, 41. This kept class members informed of the pendency of the

28 case and allowed Class Counsel to obtain additional evidence from members of the proposed

933754.1

- 21 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 31 of 35

1 class regarding the facts underlying the class claims. Id. Plaintiffs may recover costs of public

2 relations work that contributed “to the attainment of [the class’s] litigation goals.” Davis v. City

3 & County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir. 1992), opinion vacated in part on

4 denial of reh’g, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, Class Counsel received many calls from 5 class members after the initial press conference and resultant media exposure. Class Counsel

6 interviewed these witnesses, and obtained declarations from many of them. Cervantez Decl. ¶9,

7 18. Accordingly, this relatively modest expense advanced the litigation goals. See also

8 Rosenberg v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. C-06-0430 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2007) (Dkt. 134)

9 (Hamilton, J.) (awarding $250,000 in costs) and Supplemental Memorandum of Points and

10 Authorities in Support of Motion for Reimbursement of Costs (Dkt. 131) (requesting 11 reimbursement for cost of “consultant re: using media to publicize case to class members”).

12 (Cervantez Decl. Ex. L).

13

Electronic Database. Class Counsel incurred $190,807.16 in creating and maintaining an

14 electronic document depository to house the millions of pages of documents received from Best

15 Buy. Cervantez Decl. ¶44, 46. Counsel also created and maintained a database of class

16 members. Courts routinely recognize that such electronic databases are a necessary and 17 recoverable expense. See, e.g., McCoy v. Health Net, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 448, 479 (D.N.J.

18 2008) (granting award of $1,725,337.06 in costs, including “substantial fees for experts;

19 substantial costs associated with creating and maintaining an electronic document database . . .”

20 (citation omitted)); In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 2916472, at *8 (D.N.J. Oct. 5,

21 2007).

22

Hearing and Deposition Transcripts. Class counsel paid for transcripts of various Court

23 proceedings. These transcripts were necessary to review Court proceedings and to ensure that

24 Class Counsel followed the Court’s specific requests. Class Counsel also incurred substantial

25 costs for deposition transcripts and video recordings of depositions. In total, Class Counsel spent

26 $150,198.50 on transcripts. Cervantez Decl. ¶43. All of these costs are recoverable because they

27 were beneficial to the class and necessary to pursue the action efficiently and responsibly.

28

933754.1

- 22 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 32 of 35

1 Indeed, these costs are specifically allowed by statute and Local Rule. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2);

2 L.R. 54-3(b).

3

In-House Copying and Printing. Class counsel made every effort to review documents

4 electronically and to be efficient. Nonetheless, given the size and complexity of this case, 5 Plaintiffs’ counsel incurred $121,805.74 in in-house copying costs and $75,590.37 in printing

6 costs, a large portion of which were related to deposition exhibits or documents furnished to the

7 Court, or to experts for their review. Cervantez Decl. ¶45. Courts routinely permit these costs.

8 Ashker v. Sayre, 2011 WL 825713 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2011) (Wilken, J.) (“The costs of

9 reproducing pleadings, motions and exhibits are typically billed by attorneys to their fee-paying

10 clients” and are reimbursable); Mahach-Watkins, 2009 WL 3401281, at *2. The rates Class 11 Counsel firms charged for in-house copying are the same rates Class Counsel charge fee-paying,

12 non-contingency clients for such copying. Cervantez Decl. ¶85; Lee Decl. ¶16; Dermody ¶18.

13

Attorney Travel. In order to fully investigate this case and to take and defend depositions,

14 it was necessary for Class Counsel to travel extensively, primarily to Minneapolis where Best

15 Buy is headquartered and where Best Buy produced most of its corporate witnesses, but also to

16 cities across the United States where Best Buy took class member depositions. Cervantez Decl. 17 ¶43. Such travel expenses totaled $92,869.65 and are reimbursable. Davis v. City of San

18 Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1556 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345.

19

Messenger Service & Overnight Delivery. Class Counsel necessarily incurred $21,987.85

20 in expenses to send documents to expert and fact witnesses, in preparation for out of town

21 depositions, and for submission of courtesy copies to the Court. Cervantez Decl. ¶¶48, 50.

22 Courier fees and overnight delivery are a recoverable expense. Davis v. City of San Francisco, 23 976 F.2d 1536, 1556 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345 (holding

24 that “attorneys’ fees awards can include reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses including . . .

25 travel, courier and copying costs.”); Nobles v. MBNA Corp., 2009 WL 1854965, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

26 June 29, 2009) (awarding overnight delivery fees as “reasonable and the type typically billed by

27 attorneys in the marketplace”).

28

933754.1

- 23 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 33 of 35

1

Computer Research. Class counsel spent $21,547.36 on access to online databases in

2 order to conduct legal research. Cervantez Decl. ¶¶48, 50. Such expenses are beneficial to the

3 class and recoverable. Trustees of Const. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Redland

4 Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 287 (1989)). See 5 also Mahach-Watkins v. Depee, 2009 WL 3401281, *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2009) (Illston, J.).

6

Outside Copying. Class counsel paid outside vendors to copy, enlarge, or otherwise

7 duplicate documents related to this litigation for a total amount of $11,885.69. Cervantez Decl.

8 ¶45, 50. “Requests for reimbursement for photocopying charges are regularly reimbursed.” In re

9 Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1368 (N.D. Cal. 1996)(“the outside copy

10 services expenses should be granted in full.”).

11

Telephone and Fax Costs. Class Counsel necessarily incurred telephone videoconference

12 and fax costs of $11,861.50, Cervantez Decl. ¶¶48, 50, and they are reimbursable. Mahach-

13 Watkins, 2009 WL 3401281, at *2.

14

Mediation Services. In an attempt to settle this lawsuit, Class Counsel necessarily

15 incurred $9,829.18 in mediation expenses. Cervantez Decl. ¶47. These expenses are recoverable.

16 See In re Immune Response Securities Litigation, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1177-78 (S.D. Cal. 17 2007).

18

Postage. Over the course of this six-year litigation, Class Counsel have incurred postage

19 costs in an amount of $4,092.67. Cervantez Decl. ¶¶48, 50. Such costs were necessary to the

20 litigation and are regularly reimbursed. Mahach-Watkins, 2009 WL 3401281, at *1.

21

Witness Travel and Per Diem. Class Counsel incurred travel and per diem costs of

22 $3,697.25 for the many witnesses that Best Buy deposed. Cervantez Decl. ¶50; Such reasonable 23 costs are recoverable. 28 U.S.C. §1920(3); ASIS Internet Services v. Optin Global, Inc., No. C-

24 05-5124 JCS, 2008 WL 5245931 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) aff’d sub nom. ASIS Internet Services

25 v. Azoogle.com, Inc., 357 F. App’x. 112 (9th Cir. 2009).

26

Overtime Meals and Taxis. Class Counsel incurred costs for overtime meals and taxi

27 service in order to respond to unexpected events and tight deadlines. Cervantez Decl. ¶¶49, 50.

28 These costs amounted to $2,750.78. Courts reimburse such costs. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v.

933754.1

- 24 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 34 of 35

1 Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 426 F.3d 694, 718 (3d Cir. 2005) (overtime meals); Finkelstein v. Bergna,

2 804 F. Supp. 1235, 1264 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (taxis). Class Counsel regularly bill paying clients for

3 such charges. Cervantez Decl. ¶88; Lee Decl. ¶16.

4

Court Filing Fees. Class counsel have incurred filing costs related to this litigation of

5 $670.00. Cervantez Decl. ¶50. “A filing or serving fee is unquestionably a necessary expense of

6 every litigation.” In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. at1371.

7

Secretarial Overtime. In order to respond to unexpected events and tight deadlines during

8 the course of this litigation, Class Counsel also incurred $118.74 in costs for secretarial overtime.

9 Cervantez Decl. ¶49, 50. Courts have reimbursed these costs. Automotive Prods. PLC v. Tilton

10 Eng’g, Inc., 855 F. Supp. 1101, 1106 (C.D. Cal. 1994). Class Counsel bill paying clients for such 11 charges. Cervantez Decl. ¶85.

12

CONCLUSION

13

For the foregoing reasons, Class Counsel’s Application for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees

14 and Reimbursement of Costs in the amount of $9,999,999 (consisting of $1,836,858.67 in cost

15 and expenses and $8,163,140.33 in attorneys’ fees) should be granted.

16 Respectfully Submitted,
17
18
19
20
21
22 Dated: August 17, 2011
23

James M. Finberg (SBN 114850) Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709) Caroline P. Cincotta (SBN 261056) ALTSHULER BERZON L.L.P. 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
By:_____/s/ Eve H. Cervantez_________

24

25

26

27

28

933754.1

- 25 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 366 Filed 08/17/11 Page 35 of 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
933754.1

Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716) Daniel M. Hutchinson (SBN 239458) LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, L.L.P. 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) Lindsay Nako (SBN 239090) Angelica K. Jongco (SBN 244374) LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER &
JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
Todd M. Schneider (SBN 158253) Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151) Andrew P. Lee (SBN 245903) SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY, L.L.P. 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Classes

- 26 -

ATTORNEYS’ FEES APPLICATION CASE NO. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

 
 Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 1 of 50
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,PROTO,PRVADR
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:05−cv−05056−PJH

Holloway et al v. Best Buy Co., Inc. Assigned to: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton Referred to: Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Date Terminated: 11/09/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Jasmen Holloway

represented by Bill Lann Lee Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510−839−6824 Fax: 510−839−7839 Email: blee@creeclaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clint J. Brayton Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 415−421−7100 Fax: 415−421−7105 Email: cbrayton@schneiderwallace.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Hutchinson Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111−3339 (415) 956−1000 x2312 Fax: (415) 956−1008 Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 421−7151 Fax: 415−362−8064 Email: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek , Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 780 Third Avenue 48th Floor New York, NY 10017−2024

212−355−9500 Fax: 212−355−9592 Email: gwiltsek@lchb.com

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 2 of 50
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Finberg Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 415−421−7151 Fax: 415−362−8064 Email: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Geoffrey Konecky Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−421−7100 Fax: 415−421−7105 Email: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M. Dermody Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111−3339 415−956−1000 Fax: 415−956−1008 Email: kdermody@lchb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Michael Schneider Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−421−7100 Fax: 415−421−7105 Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vincent Cheng Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510−839−6824 Fax: 510−839−7839 Email: vincent@blockesq.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W.H. Hank Willson , IV Email: wwillson@schneiderwallace.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Paul Lee Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho 300 Lakeside Dr., Ste. 1000 Oakland, CA 94612

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 3 of 50
(510) 763−9800 Fax: (510) 835−1417 Email: alee@gbdhlegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angelica Kristen Jongco Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510−839−6824 Fax: 510−839−7839 Email: ajongco@lewisfeinberg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barbra Williams Diallo Reed Smith LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2900 LA, CA 90071 213−457−8000 Email: bdiallo@reeedsmith.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Camilla Louisa Roberson , GA TERMINATED: 09/09/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Place Cincotta Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 415−421−7151 Fax: 415−362−8064 Email: ccincotta@hcrc.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guy Burton Wallace Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP 2000 Powell Street Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−421−7100 Fax: 415−421−7105 Email: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie Lorraine Crook ACLU of Northern California ACLU of Northern California 39 Drumm Street San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94111 United Sta 4156212493 Email: jcrook@aclunc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie McCray Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post St Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94117 415−421−7151

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 4 of 50

Email: kmccray@wilsonturnerkosmo.com TERMINATED: 07/28/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Polastri Nako Impact Fund 125 University Ave., Ste. 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 510−845−3473 ext. 307 Fax: 510−845−3654 Email: lnako@impactfund.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy Jinsun Park Email: npark@meyersnave.com TERMINATED: 03/26/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Briana Sunshine , NY Email: nsunshine@outtengolden.com TERMINATED: 08/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Amy Garcia

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clint J. Brayton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Hutchinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jamie Lorraine Crook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Geoffrey Konecky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 5 of 50

Todd Michael Schneider (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W.H. Hank Willson , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelica Kristen Jongco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbra Williams Diallo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline Place Cincotta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Burton Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Marie McCray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Polastri Nako (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy Jinsun Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Briana Sunshine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Cheryl Chappel

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clint J. Brayton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 6 of 50
Daniel M. Hutchinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie Lorraine Crook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Geoffrey Konecky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Michael Schneider (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W.H. Hank Willson , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angelica Kristen Jongco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barbra Williams Diallo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Place Cincotta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guy Burton Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie McCray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 7 of 50

Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Polastri Nako (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy Jinsun Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Briana Sunshine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Muembo Muanza

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clint J. Brayton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Hutchinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jamie Lorraine Crook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Geoffrey Konecky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Michael Schneider (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 8 of 50

W.H. Hank Willson , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelica Kristen Jongco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbra Williams Diallo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline Place Cincotta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Burton Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Marie McCray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Polastri Nako (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy Jinsun Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Briana Sunshine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Maurice Calhoun

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clint J. Brayton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Hutchinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 9 of 50
Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jamie Lorraine Crook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Geoffrey Konecky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Michael Schneider (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W.H. Hank Willson , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angelica Kristen Jongco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barbra Williams Diallo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Place Cincotta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guy Burton Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie McCray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Polastri Nako

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 10 of 50

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy Jinsun Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Briana Sunshine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nicholas Dixon

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clint J. Brayton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Hutchinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jamie Lorraine Crook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Geoffrey Konecky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Michael Schneider (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W.H. Hank Willson , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 11 of 50

Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelica Kristen Jongco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbra Williams Diallo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline Place Cincotta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Burton Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Marie McCray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Polastri Nako (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy Jinsun Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Briana Sunshine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Eric Blacksher

represented by Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelica Kristen Jongco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbra Williams Diallo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline Place Cincotta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 12 of 50

Daniel M. Hutchinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Burton Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jamie Lorraine Crook (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Polastri Nako (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Briana Sunshine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jessica Treas

represented by Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelica Kristen Jongco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbra Williams Diallo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline Place Cincotta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Hutchinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Burton Wallace (See above for address)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 13 of 50

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jamie Lorraine Crook (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsay Polastri Nako (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Briana Sunshine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lawrence Santiago, Jr.

represented by Andrew Paul Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angelica Kristen Jongco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbra Williams Diallo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline Place Cincotta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Hutchinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eve Hedy Cervantez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Burton Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jamie Lorraine Crook (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 14 of 50
Kelly M. Dermody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Polastri Nako (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi Briana Sunshine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc.

represented by David Martinez Robins Kaplan LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067−3208 310−552−0130 Fax: 310−229−5800 Email: dmartinez@robinskaplan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hernaldo Jose Baltodano Baltodano & Baltodano LLP 733 Marsh Street, Suite 110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805−322−3412 Fax: 805−322−3413 Email: hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/02/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa L Heller Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC 999 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 1120 Atlanta, GA 30309 678−701−9381 Fax: 404−856−3250 Email: lheller@robbinsfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frank Hinton Archer Norris PLC 333 South Grand Avenue Suite 3680 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−437−4000 Fax: 213−437−4011 Email: rhinton@archernorris.com TERMINATED: 03/02/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin M. Weiss Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 15 of 50
2049 Century Park East Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067−3211 310−552−0130 Fax: 310−229−5800 Email: bmweiss@rkmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Blair J. Robinson Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−963−5398 Fax: 215−963−5001 Email: Blair.Robinson@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Alan Stohner Faegre Baker Daniels 11766 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 3105002124 Fax: 3105002091 Email: george.stohner@faegrebd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melinda S. Riechert Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 (650) 843−4000 Fax: (650) 843−4001 Email: melinda.riechert@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul C. Evans , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−963−5431 Fax: 877−432−9652 Email: pevans@morganlewis.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecka M. Biejo Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067−3211 310−552−0130 Fax: 310−229−5800 Email: rmbiejo@rkmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard W. Black Littler Mendelson, P.C. 1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202.423.2151 Fax: 202.403.3092 Email: rblack@littler.com TERMINATED: 10/05/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 16 of 50

Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Roman M. Silberfeld Robins Kaplan L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067−3211 (310)552−0130 Fax: 310−229−5800 Email: rsilberfeld@robinskaplan.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarinya S. Teng Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067−3208 310−552−0130x5403 Fax: 310−229−5800 Email: ssteng@rkmc.com TERMINATED: 01/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vincent Sean Yuen Loh Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067−3208 310−552−0130x5409 Fax: 310−229−5800 Email: vloh@mrllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin M. Weiss (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Martinez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roman M. Silberfeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Blair J. Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Alan Stohner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melinda S. Riechert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarinya S. Teng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/19/2011

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 17 of 50

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vincent Sean Yuen Loh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interested objector to Best Buy subpoena of Dr. Kalev

represented by James Growdon Allison US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507 202−663−4661 Fax: 202−663−4639 Email: james.allison@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/08/2005
12/08/2005
12/08/2005 01/11/2006 01/30/2006 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 02/02/2006 02/02/2006 02/03/2006
02/07/2006 02/07/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT /issued summons against Best Buy Co., Inc. ( Filing fee $ 250, receipt number 3379174.). Filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2005) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/8/2006 (far, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/19/2018: # 1 summons issued) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/19/2018: # 2 Civil Cover Sheet and receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2005)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 4/6/2006. Case Management Conference set for 4/13/2006 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 12/8/05. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order# 2 Consent/Decline)(ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2005) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Jasmen Holloway. Service waived by Best Buy Co., Inc. waiver sent on 12/14/2005, answer due 2/13/2006. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 1/11/2006) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
4 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Hinton, Robert) (Filed on 1/30/2006) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
5 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Best Buy Co., Inc. REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT. (Martinez, David) (Filed on 2/1/2006) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
6 Certificate of Interested Entities (Martinez, David) (Filed on 2/1/2006) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
7 CLERK'S NOTICE re: Plaintiffs Failure to E−File the Complaint 1 (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2006) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
8 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2006) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
9 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton for all further proceedings. Judge Maria−Elena James no longer assigned to the case. Signed by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE on 2/3/06. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2006) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
10 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: Case Management Conference set for 4/13/2006 02:30 PM. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/7/06. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2006) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon re 10 Order, Set Hearings

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 18 of 50

03/01/2006 03/03/2006 03/23/2006 03/23/2006 03/23/2006 03/23/2006 03/24/2006
03/28/2006 03/28/2006
03/28/2006 03/31/2006 04/06/2006 04/07/2006 04/14/2006
05/22/2006 06/16/2006 08/15/2006

(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 2/7/2006) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
12 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byBest Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/1/2006) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
13 Certificate of Interested Entities AMENDED (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/3/2006) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
14 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Private ADR by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 3/23/2006) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
15 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options by Parties and Counsel (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 3/23/2006) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
16 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/23/2006) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
17 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Brayton, Clint) (Filed on 3/23/2006) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
18 STIPULATION AND ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS re 14 Stipulation and Proposed Order selecting Private ADR filed by Jasmen Holloway,, Amy Garcia,, Cheryl Chappel,, Muembo Muanza,, Maurice Calhoun,, Nicholas Dixon,. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/24/06. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2006) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
19 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Brayton, Clint) (Filed on 3/28/2006) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
20 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Gena E. Wiltsek, Fee Paid, Receipt Number 3383689 filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2018: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/29/2006)
Received Order re 20 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2006) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
21 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 20 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Gena E. Wiltsek. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2006) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
22 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 4/6/2006) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
23 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Willson, W.H.) (Filed on 4/7/2006) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
24 Minute Entry: Case Management Conference held on 4/13/2006 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 4/14/2006). Further Case Management Conference set for 1/18/2007 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/14/2006) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
25 Proposed Order STIPULATED PROTECTIVE by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Biejo, Rebecka) (Filed on 5/22/2006) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
26 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 616/06. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2006) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
27 MOTION to Shorten Time STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit OF EVE H CERVANTEZ IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/15/2006) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 19 of 50

08/16/2006 08/16/2006
08/16/2006 08/16/2006 08/16/2006
08/17/2006 08/17/2006 08/21/2006 08/21/2006 08/22/2006 08/24/2006
08/29/2006
08/29/2006 08/31/2006 09/05/2006

28 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for Discovery purposes. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 8/16/06. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2006) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
29 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Privilege Logs filed by Best Buy Co., Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 8/23/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Declaration of Roman M. Silberfeld# 3 Exhibit A to Silberfeld Declaration# 4 Exhibit B to Silberfeld Declaration# 5 Exhibit C to Silberfeld Declaration# 6 [Proposed] Order Granting Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 8/16/2006) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
30 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. Motion Hearing set for 8/23/2006 09:00 AM. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/16/2006) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
31 Proposed Order re 30 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/16/2006) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
32 Declaration of Daniel M. Hutchinson in Support of 30 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/16/2006) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James for Discovery (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2006) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
33 NOTICE OF REFERENCE ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Maria−Elena James 27 Motion to Shorten Time, 29 Motion to Compel, 30 Motion to Compel (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2006) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James for Discovery (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2006) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James for Discovery (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2006) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
34 Letter from Eve H. Cervantez and Roman M. Silberfeld to Hon. Maria−Elena James. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit ATTESTATION REGARDING CONFORMED SIGNATURES)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/22/2006) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
35 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PERSONNEL RECORDS re 34 Letter filed by Jasmen Holloway,, Amy Garcia,, Cheryl Chappel,, Muembo Muanza,, Maurice Calhoun,, Nicholas Dixon,. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 8/24/2006. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2006) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
36 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Camilla Roberson, Fee Paid, Receipt Number 3389433 filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2006) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2018: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Receipt) (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/30/2006)
Received Order re 36 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2006) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
37 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 36 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Camilla Louisa Roberson. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2006) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
38 ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 9/5/2006. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 20 of 50

10/12/2006 10/18/2006
11/13/2006 11/15/2006 11/22/2006 11/22/2006
11/28/2006 12/11/2006 12/13/2006 12/13/2006 12/18/2006 12/22/2006 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/08/2007

39 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING CERTAIN DATES by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/12/2006) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
40 STIPULATION AND ORDER re: 39 Stipulation Continuing Certain Dates. Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint with new plaintiffs due 11/15/06. Staggered deadlines for defendant's responses to Requests for Production: 11/15/06, 2/28/07, to be completed by 4/30/07. Parties to engage in private ADR between 3/07 and 6/07 and file statement re: outcome on 8/07. Defense 30(b)(6) witnesses avalaible between 6/07 and 8/07. Deadline to amend complaint for reason other than new plainitffs no later than 6/13/07. Plaintiff expert designations due 10/1/07; Defense expert designations due 12/3/07. Plaintiff rebuttal expert reports due 1/14/08. Defense rebuttal 2/15/08. Motion for class certification due 3/12/08. Opposition 5/7/08. Reply 6/4/08. Hearing on motion 6/25/08 at 9:00 a.m., Courtroom 3, 17th floor. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/17/06. (epb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2006) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
41 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Continuing Date for Filing of First Amended Complaint by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 11/13/2006) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
42 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DATE FOR FILING OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/15/06. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2006) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
43 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Allowing Plaintiffs to File First Amended Complaint by Jasmen Holloway. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
44 EXHIBITS re 43 Stipulation Exhibit 1 to Stipulation and Proposed Order Allowing Plaintiffs to File First Amended Complaint filed byJasmen Holloway. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 43 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
45 STIPULATION AND ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT re 43 Stipulation filed by Jasmen Holloway. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/28/06. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2006) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
46 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING JANUARY 18, 2007 STATUS CONFERENCE by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Martinez, David) (Filed on 12/11/2006) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
47 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING THE JANUARY 18, 2007 STATUS CONFERENCE TO MAY 31, 2007 re 46 Stipulation filed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/12/06. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2006) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 5/24/2007. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/31/2007 02:30 PM. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2006) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
48 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly M. Dermody (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 12/18/2006) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
49 Answer to Amended Complaint (First) byBest Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 12/22/2006) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
50 NOTICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon Association of Counsel (Finberg, James) (Filed on 1/4/2007) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
51 NOTICE of Change of Address by Eve H. Cervantez (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 1/4/2007) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
52 NOTICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon of Change of Firm of Bill Lann Lee and Additional Appearance of Vincent Cheng and Lindsay Nako (Nako, Lindsay) (Filed on 1/8/2007)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 21 of 50

01/18/2007 01/19/2007 02/14/2007 03/21/2007 03/29/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 05/14/2007 05/21/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 06/19/2007 06/27/2007
06/27/2007
06/28/2007 06/29/2007

(Entered: 01/08/2007)
53 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE REDACTIONS TO BEST BUY'S FORTHCOMING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Weiss, Benjamin) (Filed on 1/18/2007) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
54 ORDER RE REDACTIONS TO BEST BUY'S FORTHCOMING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION re 53 Stipulation filed by Best Buy Co., Inc.,. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 1/19/2007. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2007) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
55 NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine Marie Pollock (Pollock, Katherine) (Filed on 2/14/2007) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
56 STIPULATION [AMENDED] AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING CERTAIN DATES by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Martinez, David) (Filed on 3/21/2007) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
57 AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING CERTAIN DATES re 56 Stipulation filed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/29/07. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2007) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
58 STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING CERTAIN DATES by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/30/2007) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Best Buy Co., Inc. re 58 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Certain Dates (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/30/2007) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
60 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING CERTAIN DATES re 58 Stipulation filed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Case Management Conference set for 7/26/2007 02:30 PM. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/14/07. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2007) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
61 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO AUGUST 2, 2007 AT 2:30 P.M. by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Martinez, David) (Filed on 5/21/2007) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
62 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO AUGUST 2, 2007 AT 2:30 P.M re 61 Stipulation filed by Best Buy Co., Inc . Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/25/07. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2007) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 7/26/2007. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/2/2007 02:30 PM. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2007) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
63 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 6/19/2007) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
64 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE AND CONTINUE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 63 Stipulation filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Best Buy Co., Inc., Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/27/07. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Mediation shall be completed by 10/16/07. Status Report regarding the outcome of private ADR due by 11/15/2007.Case Management Statement due by 11/21/2007. Further Case Management Conference set for 11/29/2007 02:30 PM. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
65 NOTICE of Change of Address by Vincent Sean Yuen Loh (Loh, Vincent) (Filed on 6/28/2007) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
66 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND JUNE 30, 2007 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION DEADLINE IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PARTIES

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 22 of 50

07/05/2007
07/09/2007 07/12/2007
07/13/2007 07/19/2007 07/20/2007 07/23/2007 07/24/2007 07/25/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 08/09/2007 08/16/2007 11/07/2007

TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING POSSIBLE METHODS FOR STREAMLINING DISCOVERY AND NEW PRODUCTION AND FILING DEADLINES by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 6/29/2007) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
67 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND JUNE 30, 2007 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION DEADLINE IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING POSSIBLE METHODS FOR STREAMLINING DISCOVERY AND NEW PRODUCTION AND FILING DEADLINES re 66 Stipulation, filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/5/07. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2007) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
68 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR STREAMLINING DISCOVERY AND NEW PRODUCTION AND FILING DEADLINES by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 7/9/2007) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
69 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STREAMLINING DISCOVERY AND NEW PRODUCTION AND FILING DEADLINES re 68 Stipulation, filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Best Buy Co., Inc., Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/12/07. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2007) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
70 Letter from Todd M. Schneider to the Honorable Magistrate Judge James re: permission to exceed page limit. (Schneider, Todd) (Filed on 7/13/2007) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
71 ORDER RE REQUEST TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTE re 70 Letter filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 7/19/2007. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
72 Statement of Non−Opposition to 70 Plaintiff's Request to Exceed Page Limit for Discovery Dispute filed byBest Buy Co., Inc.. (Martinez, David) (Filed on 7/20/2007) Modified on 7/23/2007 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/20/2007)
73 ORDER GRANTING PERMISSION TO EXCEED DISCOVERY PAGE LIMIT re 70 Letter filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 7/23/2007. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2007) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
74 Letter from Christopher M. Patti and Roman M. Silberfeld to the Honorable Maria−Elena James regarding subpoenas served upon Dr. Alexandra Kalev, Ph.D. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 7/24/2007) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
75 NOTICE of Appearance by Nancy Jinsun Park (Park, Nancy) (Filed on 7/25/2007) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
76 Letter from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission objecting to part of Best Buy subpoena of Dr. Kalev. (Allison, James) (Filed on 7/26/2007) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
77 ORDER QUASHING KALEV SUBPOENAS re 74 Letter filed by Best Buy Co., Inc.. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 7/26/2007. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2007) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
78 OBJECTIONS to 77 July 26, 2007 Order of Magistrate Judge by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 8/9/2007) Modified on 8/10/2007 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/09/2007)
79 ORDER re Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 8/16/2007. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2007) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
80 NOTICE of Appearance by Barbra Lynne Williams (Williams, Barbra) (Filed on 11/7/2007) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 23 of 50

11/13/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/19/2007 11/20/2007 11/21/2007 11/26/2007 11/26/2007
11/27/2007
11/27/2007 01/29/2008 01/31/2008 02/12/2008
03/10/2008

81 STATUS REPORT RE: OUTCOME OF PRIVATE ADR by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 11/13/2007) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
82 Letter from Todd M. Schneider. (Schneider, Todd) (Filed on 11/16/2007) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
83 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 86 . *** Letter Brief filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Schneider, Todd) (Filed on 11/16/2007) Modified on 11/21/2007 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2007)
84 Declaration of Todd M. Schneider in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Regarding Native Documents filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits F−I)(Schneider, Todd) (Filed on 11/16/2007) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
85 Declaration of Kirti Dugar in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Regarding Native Documents filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Schneider, Todd) (Filed on 11/16/2007) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
86 Letter Brief re 83 Letter Brief Amended filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 83 ) (Schneider, Todd) (Filed on 11/19/2007) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
87 Proposed Order and Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 11/20/2007) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
88 MOTION to Amend/Correct Incorrectly Filed Document filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Park, Nancy) (Filed on 11/21/2007) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
89 ORDER by Judge Maria−Elena James granting 88 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2007) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
90 ORDER GRANTING NATIVE FORMAT PRODUCTION ON A LIMITED BASIS re 86 Letter Brief filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 11/26/2007. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2007) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
91 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 87 Proposed Order filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/27/07. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2007) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 4/17/2008. Case Management Conference set for 4/24/2008 02:30 PM. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2007) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
92 NOTICE of Appearance by Naomi Briana Sunshine (Sunshine, Naomi) (Filed on 1/29/2008) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
93 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 1/31/2008) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
94 STIPULATION AND ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS' TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT re 93 Stipulation filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/12/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2008) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
95 ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint byBest Buy Co., Inc. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/10/2008) Modified on 3/11/2008 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 24 of 50

03/14/2008 03/21/2008 03/24/2008
03/31/2008 04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/07/2008 04/07/2008 04/08/2008 04/09/2008 04/14/2008 04/14/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008

03/10/2008)
96 Letter Brief regarding Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Native Documents filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 3/14/2008) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
97 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Case Management Conference by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 3/21/2008) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
98 ORDER Granting re 97 Stipulation Re: Case Management Conference filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Best Buy Co., Inc., Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel Further Case Management Conference set for 5/1/2008 02:30 PM.. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/24/08. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2008) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
99 ORDER RE: NATIVE DOCUMENTS PRODUCTION re 96 Letter Brief, filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Best Buy Co., Inc., Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 3/31/2008. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2008) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
100 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CERTAIN DATES by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 4/4/2008) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
101 ERRONEOUSLY E−FILED, WRONG CASE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 4/4/2008) Modified on 4/7/2008 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/04/2008)
102 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Richard W. Black ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611017880.) filed by Best Buy Co., Inc. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2008) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
103 Received Order re 102 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611017880.) by Best Buy Co., Inc. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2008) (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2008)
104 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING CERTAIN DATES re 100 Stipulation filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/7/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2008) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
105 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF RICHARD W. BLACK PRO HAC VICE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 102 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
106 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Paul C. Evans ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611018137.) filed by Best Buy Co., Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Receipt)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
107 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Blair J. Robinson ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611018138.) filed by Best Buy Co., Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Receipt)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2008) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
108 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 4/18/2008) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
109 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF PAUL C. EVANS PRO HAC VICE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 106 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2008) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
110 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF BLAIR J. ROBINSON PRO HAC VICE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 107 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2008) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 25 of 50

04/21/2008 06/09/2008 06/16/2008 06/25/2008 06/30/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008

111 ORDER granting 108 Stipulation Continuing Case Management Conference filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Best Buy Co., Inc., Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/21/2008. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2008) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
112 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORTS by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 6/9/2008) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
113 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORTS re 112 Stipulation filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Best Buy Co., Inc., Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/16/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2008) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
114 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEADLINES FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE EXPERT REBUTTAL REPORTS AND CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Nako, Lindsay) (Filed on 6/25/2008) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
115 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Conference set for 7/10/2008 02:30 PM. Joint Case Management Statement due by 7/3/2008. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2008) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
116 JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE PORTION OF JOINT CMC STATEMENT UNDER SEAL filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 7/3/2008) Modified on 7/7/2008 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2008)
117 STIPULATION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE PORTION OF JOINT CMC STATEMENT UNDER SEAL by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 7/3/2008) Modified on 7/7/2008 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2008)
118 DECLARATION OF EVE H. CERVANTEZ REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE PORTION OF JOINT CMC STATEMENT UNDER SEAL filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 7/3/2008) Modified on 7/7/2008 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2008)
119 [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF PORTION OF JOINT CMC STATEMENT UNDER SEAL re 116 Joint Administrative Motion by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 7/3/2008) Modified on 7/7/2008 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2008)
120 [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING EXPERT REBUTTAL DISCOVERY AND CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING AND HEARING, AND SETTING FURTHER CMC by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 7/3/2008) Modified on 7/7/2008 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/03/2008)
121 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 7/3/2008) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
Received Document: JOINT CMC STATEMENT (Requested to be filed under seal) by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2008) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
122 [REDACTED] JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc. (far, COURT

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 26 of 50

07/03/2008
07/08/2008 07/11/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 08/19/2008 09/04/2008 09/04/2008 09/09/2008 11/14/2008 11/18/2008 11/21/2008 12/01/2008 12/08/2008 12/09/2008

STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2008) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
124 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (FILED UNDER SEAL) filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2008) (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/08/2008)
123 ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 116 Motion for Leave Permitting Filing of Portion of Joint CMC Statement Under Seal (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2008) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
125 Minute Entry: Case Management Conference held on 7/10/2008 before Phyllis J. Hamiltion (Date Filed: 7/11/2008). Parties directed to meet and confer and submit a realistic proposed scheduled by the first week in September. (Court Reporter None.) (fj, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/11/2008) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
126 NOTICE by Jasmen Holloway NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL (Pollock, Katherine) (Filed on 7/28/2008) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
127 NOTICE of Appearance by Jamie Lorraine Crook (Crook, Jamie) (Filed on 7/28/2008) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
128 STIPULATION REGARDING USE OF OCTOBER 2006 BACK UP TAPES by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/19/2008) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
129 ERRONEOUSLY E−FILED, SEE DOC 130 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Discovery and Briefing re Motion for Class Certification by Best Buy Co., Inc. (Martinez, David) (Filed on 9/4/2008) Modified on 9/4/2008 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/04/2008)
130 CORRECTION OF DOC 129 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Discovery and Briefing re Motion for Class Certification by Best Buy Co., Inc. (Martinez, David) (Filed on 9/4/2008) Modified on 9/4/2008 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/04/2008)
131 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING RE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re 130 Stipulation filed by Best Buy Co., Inc. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/9/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2008) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
132 Letter Brief Regarding Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Executives' Hard Drive Documents (Joint) filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Williams, Barbra) (Filed on 11/14/2008) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
133 DISCOVERY ORDER re 132 Letter Brief, filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Best Buy Co., Inc., Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 11/18/2008. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2008) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
134 Letter Brief Joint Letter Brief re Deposition Transcripts filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon, Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Williams, Barbra) (Filed on 11/21/2008) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
135 ORDER RE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS re 134 Letter Brief filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Best Buy Co., Inc., Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 12/1/2008. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
136 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Production of Documents from Corporate Officers by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Weiss, Benjamin) (Filed on 12/8/2008) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
137 ORDER RE CORPORATE OFFICER DOCUMENT PRODUCTION. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 12/9/2008. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2008) (Entered: 12/09/2008)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 27 of 50

12/09/2008 12/29/2008 01/05/2009 01/06/2009 01/06/2009
01/08/2009
01/08/2009 01/30/2009
02/03/2009
02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/11/2009

138 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Best Buy Co., Inc. re 136 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Production of Documents from Corporate Officers (Weiss, Benjamin) (Filed on 12/9/2008) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
139 STIPULATION re extension of letter brief page limit by Jasmen Holloway. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 12/29/2008) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
140 NOTICE of Appearance by Angelica Kristen Jongco (Jongco, Angelica) (Filed on 1/5/2009) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
141 ORDER PERMITTING PARTIES TO EXCEED DISCOVERY LETTER PAGE LIMIT re 139 Stipulation filed by Jasmen Holloway. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 1/6/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2009) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
142 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING: (1) FILING OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) DISMISSAL OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE; AND (3) DISMISSAL OF CLASS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits A−I to Third Amended Complaint)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 1/6/2009) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
143 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING 1) FILING OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 2) DISMISSAL OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND 3) DISMISSAL OF CLASS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE re 142 Stipulation, filed by Nicholas Dixon, Maurice Calhoun, Muembo Muanza, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/8/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2009) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
144 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants. Filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−I to TAC)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 1/8/2009) Modified on 1/12/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2009)
145 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT RE CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
146 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING AS MODIFIED re 145 Stipulation, filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/3/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2009) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
147 NOTICE by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. of Name Change (Kaewdaunglek, Sarinya) (Filed on 2/6/2009) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
148 ANSWER to 144 Amended Complaint by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 2/6/2009) Modified on 2/9/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2009)
149 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. re 148 Answer to Amended Complaint (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 2/6/2009) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
150 MOTION to Seal PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION; ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of B. L. Williams ISO Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Portions of Memo ISO of Class Cert & Documents Under Seal)(Williams, Barbra) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 28 of 50

02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009
02/11/2009 02/12/2009

151 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as Class Counsel filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Sunshine, Naomi) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
152 Declaration of Guy B. Wallace in Support of 151 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as Class Counsel filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 151 ) (Sunshine, Naomi) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
153 Declaration of Kelly M. Dermody in Support of 151 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as Class Counsel filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 151 ) (Sunshine, Naomi) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
154 Declaration of Eve H. Cervantez in Support of 151 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as Class Counsel filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 151 ) (Sunshine, Naomi) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
155 Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support of 151 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as Class Counsel filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 151 ) (Sunshine, Naomi) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
156 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification and for Appointment of Class Counsel)(Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
157 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon re 156 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
158 Declaration of DANIEL M. HUTCHINSON in Support of 156 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 156 ) (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
159 EXHIBITS re 158 Declaration in Support, TAB 4 and TAB 5 filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tab 4, Part 2, # 2 Exhibit Tab 5, Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Tab 5 − Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Tab 5 − Part 3, # 5 Exhibit Tab 5 − Part 4, # 6 Exhibit Tab 5 − Part 5, # 7 Exhibit Tab 5 − Part 6, # 8 Exhibit Tab 5 − Part 7)(Related document(s) 158 ) (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
160 EXHIBITS re 158 Declaration in Support, TAB 113 through TAB 160 filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tabs 142 through 154, # 2 Exhibit Tabs 155 through 160)(Related document(s) 158 ) (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 2/11/2009) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
161 EXHIBITS re 150 MOTION to Seal PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION; ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Exhibits A−C to Declaration of B. L. Williams ISO Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Documents

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 29 of 50

02/12/2009 02/18/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009
03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009 03/25/2009
03/25/2009

Under Seal (Docket No. 150−2)) filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 150 ) (Williams, Barbra) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
162 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Preservation of Documents and Electronic Media by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
163 Letter from Eve Cervantez. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 2/18/2009) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
164 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PRESERVATION OF DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONIC MEDIA re 162 Stipulation filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/19/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2009) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
165 AFFIDAVIT re 150 MOTION to Seal PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION; ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Best Buy's Declaration Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5(d) Regarding Documents Filed Under Seal by Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Class Certification by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A & B to Best Buy's Declaration Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5(d) Regarding Documents Filed Under Seal by Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Class Certification, # 2 Proposed Order Regarding the Sealing of Documents and Deposition Testimony Identified in Exhibits A and B to Defendants' Declaration Filed Concurrently Herewith Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5(d))(Weiss, Benjamin) (Filed on 2/19/2009) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
166 MOTION to Strike the Expert Reports of Barbara F. Reskin, Ph.D.; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/25/2009) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
167 MOTION to Seal Document filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF SARINYA S. TENG, # 2 Proposed Order)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/25/2009) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
168 MOTION to Strike Expert Reports of Richard Drogin, Ph.D. filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/25/2009) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
169 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings re Class Claim For Initial Job Assignments Under FEHA and Title VII; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/25/2009) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
170 Declaration of Roman M. Silberfeld in Support of 166 MOTION to Strike the Expert Reports of Barbara F. Reskin, Ph.D.; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, 168 MOTION to Strike Expert Reports of Richard Drogin, Ph.D. filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1 of 2), # 2 Exhibit A (Part 2 of 2), # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C (Part 1 of 3), # 5 Exhibit C (Part 2 of 3), # 6 Exhibit C (Part 3 of 3), # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H (Part 1 of 2), # 12 Exhibit H (Part 2 of 2), # 13 Exhibit I, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 Exhibit N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit R, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit U)(Related document(s) 166 , 168 ) (Martinez, David) (Filed on 3/25/2009) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
171 NOTICE by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. re 170 Declaration in Support,,, of Motions to Strike Expert Reports of Barbara F. Reskin, Ph.D.; and Richard Drogin, Ph.D. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/25/2009) (Entered: 03/25/2009)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 30 of 50

03/26/2009 03/26/2009 04/02/2009
04/02/2009
04/06/2009 04/07/2009 04/08/2009 04/08/2009
04/08/2009
04/08/2009 04/08/2009 04/08/2009

172 ERRATA re 166 MOTION to Strike the Expert Reports of Barbara F. Reskin, Ph.D.; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 CORRECTED BRIEF)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/26/2009) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
173 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel by Guy Burton Wallace (Wallace, Guy) (Filed on 3/26/2009) Modified on 3/27/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/26/2009)
174 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Continue Hearing Date for Defendants' Motions to Strike the Expert Reports of Dr. Drogin and Dr. Reskin; Memorandum of Points And Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 4/2/2009) Modified on 4/3/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/02/2009)
175 Declaration of Eve Cervantez in Support of 174 Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Continue Hearing Date for Defendants' Motions to Strike Expert Reports of Dr. Drogin and Dr. Reskin filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−C)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 4/2/2009) Modified on 4/3/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/02/2009)
176 Memorandum in Opposition re 174 Administrative Motion to Continue Hearing Date for Defendants' Motions to Strike the Expert Reports of Dr. Drogin and Dr. Reskin filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/6/2009) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
177 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Paul Lee (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 4/7/2009) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
178 Notice of Second Administrative Motion; Second Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Crook, Jamie) (Filed on 4/8/2009) Modified on 4/9/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2009)
179 Declaration of Jamie L. Crook in Support of 178 Plaintiffs' Second Administrative Motion to File Certain Documents Under Seal filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Crook, Jamie) (Filed on 4/8/2009) Modified on 4/9/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2009)
180 Declaration of Jamie L. Crook in Support of Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Defendants' Motions to Strike the Expert Reports of Dr. Richard Drogin and Dr. Barbara Reskin filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Tab 1, # 2 Tab 2, # 3 Tab 3, # 4 Tab 4, # 5 Tab 5, # 6 Tab 6, # 7 Tab 7, # 8 Tab 12, # 9 Tab 13, # 10 Tab 14, # 11 Tab 15, # 12 Tab 16, # 13 Tab 17, # 14 Tab 18, # 15 Tab 19, # 16 Tab 20, # 17 Tab 22, # 18 Tab 23, # 19 Tab 26, # 20 Tab 28)(Crook, Jamie) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
181 Proposed Order Denying 168 Defendants' Motion to Strike Expert Report of Richard Drogin, Ph.D. by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Crook, Jamie) (Filed on 4/8/2009) Modified on 4/9/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2009)
182 OPPOSITION to 156 Motion for Class Certification (Filed Under Seal)filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/8/2009) Modified on 4/9/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2009)
183 MOTION to Seal Document filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Weiss Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 31 of 50

04/08/2009 04/08/2009
04/08/2009 04/08/2009
04/08/2009 04/08/2009 04/08/2009 04/08/2009 04/08/2009 04/09/2009

184 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon re 180 Declaration in Support,, (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
185 Reply Memorandum re 169 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings re Class Claim For Initial Job Assignments Under FEHA and Title VII; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying Best Buy's Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Re Class Claim For Initial Job Assignments Under FEHA And Title VII)(Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
186 Declaration of Daniel M. Hutchinson in Support of 185 Reply Memorandum,, filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 185 ) (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
187 Declaration of Lisa L. Heller in Support of 182 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (part 1 of 4), # 2 Exhibit A (part 2 of 4), # 3 Exhibit A (part 2 of 4), # 4 Exhibit A (part 4 of 4), # 5 Exhibit B (part 1 of 4), # 6 Exhibit B (part 1 of 4), # 7 Exhibit B (part 3 of 4), # 8 B (part 4 of 4), # 9 Exhibit C (part 1 of 2), # 10 Exhibit C (part 2 of 2), # 11 Exhibit D, # 12 Exhibit E, # 13 Exhibit F, # 14 Exhibit G, # 15 Exhibit H (part 1 of 5), # 16 Exhibit H (part 2 of 5), # 17 Exhibit H (part 3 of 5), # 18 Exhibit H (part 4 of 5), # 19 Exhibit H (part 5 of 5), # 20 Exhibit I, # 21 Exhibit J, # 22 Exhibit K, # 23 Exhibit L, # 24 Exhibit M, # 25 Exhibit N−Z, # 26 Exhibit AA−LL, # 27 Exhibit MM−ZZ, # 28 Exhibit AAA−III)(Related document(s) 182 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
188 Proposed Order Denying 166 Defendants' Motion to Strike the Expert Reports of Barbara F. Reskin, Ph.D., by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Nako, Lindsay) (Filed on 4/8/2009) Modified on 4/9/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2009)
189 OPPOSITION to 166 Defendants Motion to Strike the Expert Reports of Barbara F. Reskin, Ph.D. filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Nako, Lindsay) (Filed on 4/8/2009) Modified on 4/9/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/08/2009)
190 NOTICE by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. re Manual Filing (Lodging) in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
191 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Evidence in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
192 Declaration of VIncent S. Loh in Support of 191 Objection to Evidence filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (part 1 of 9), # 2 A (part 2 of 9), # 3 Exhibit A (part 3 of 9), # 4 Exhibit A (part 4 of 9), # 5 Exhibit A (part 5 of 9), # 6 A (part 6 of 9), # 7 Exhibit A (part 7 of 9), # 8 Exhibit A (part 8 of 9), # 9 Exhibit A (part 9 of 9), # 10 Exhibit B−F, # 11 Exhibit G−K, # 12 Exhibit L−P, # 13 Exhibit Q−S)(Related document(s) 191 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
193 NOTICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon re 189 Memorandum in Opposition, of Errata re: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike the Expert Reports of Barbara F. Reskin, Ph.D. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' Corrected Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike the Expert Reports of Barbara F. Reskin, Ph.D.)(Jongco, Angelica) (Filed on 4/9/2009) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 32 of 50

04/09/2009 04/14/2009
04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009
04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/22/2009 04/22/2009 04/22/2009 04/22/2009

194 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 174 Motion to Continue (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2009) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
195 DECLARATION of Sarinya S. Teng re 178 Notice of Second Administrative Motion; Second Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Teng, Sarinya) (Filed on 4/14/2009) Modified on 4/15/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/14/2009)
196 ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 4/15/2009. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2009) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
197 Reply Memorandum in Support of 166 Motion to Strike the Expert Reports of Dr. Reskin filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/15/2009) Modified on 4/16/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2009)
198 Reply Memorandum in Support of 168 Motion to Strike the Expert Report of Dr. Richard Drogin filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/15/2009) Modified on 4/16/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2009)
199 Declaration of Roman M. Silberfeld in Support of 198 Reply Memorandum, 197 Reply Memorandum filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R)(Related document(s) 198 , 197 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/15/2009) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
200 MOTION to Seal Document filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/15/2009) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
201 Declaration of Vincent S. Loh in Support of 200 MOTION to Seal Document filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Related document(s) 200 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/15/2009) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
202 NOTICE of Manual Filing (Lodging) in Support of 198 Reply in Support of Motion to Strike the Expert Report of Dr. Richard Drogin by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/15/2009) Modified on 4/16/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2009)
203 Reply Memorandum In Support of 169 Motion For Judgment on The Pleadings Re Class Claim for Initial Job Assignments Under FEHA and Title VII filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/15/2009) Modified on 4/16/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2009)
204 Amended MOTION to Seal Document filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
205 Declaration of Benjamin M. Weiss in Support of 204 Amended MOTION to Seal Document filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to the Amended Declaration of Benjamin M. Weiss)(Related document(s) 204 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
206 Proposed Order re 204 Amended MOTION to Seal Document by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
207 Declaration of Lisa L. Heller in Support of 182 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (1 of 3), # 2 Exhibit A (2 of 3), # 3 Exhibit A (3 of 3), # 4 Exhibit B (1 of 6), # 5 Exhibit B (2 of 6), # 6 Exhibit B (3 of 6), # 7 Exhibit B (4 of 6), # 8 Exhibit B (5 of 6), # 9 Exhibit B (6 of 6), # 10 Exhibit C (1 of 3), # 11

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 33 of 50

04/22/2009 04/22/2009 04/22/2009 04/22/2009 04/23/2009 04/24/2009
04/24/2009 04/24/2009 04/24/2009

Exhibit C (2 of 3), # 12 Exhibit C (3 of 3), # 13 Exhibit D, # 14 Exhibit E, # 15 Exhibit F, # 16 Exhibit G, # 17 Exhibit H (1 of 5), # 18 Exhibit H (2 of 5), # 19 Exhibit H (3 of 5), # 20 Exhibit H (4 of 5), # 21 Exhibit H (5 of 5), # 22 Exhibit I, # 23 Exhibit J, # 24 Exhibit K, # 25 Exhibit L, # 26 Exhibit M, # 27 Exhibit N−Z, # 28 Exhibit AA−LL, # 29 Exhibit MM−ZZ, # 30 Exhibit AAA−III)(Related document(s) 182 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
208 NOTICE by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. Amended Notice of Manual Filing (Lodging) in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
209 AFFIDAVIT re 150 MOTION to Seal PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION; ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Amended Declaration Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5(d) Regarding Documents Filed Under Seal by Plaintiffs in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and Exhibit B)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
210 Proposed Order re 209 Affidavit, Sealing and Unsealing Documents Filed by Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Class Certification by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
211 NOTICE by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. re 183 MOTION to Seal Document, 165 Affidavit,,, Notice of Withdrawal of: (1) Best Buy's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal and (2) Declaration Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5(d) Regarding Documents Filed Under Seal by Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
212 MOTION for Hearing on Application for an Order Permitting Use of Video Projector filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Loh, Vincent) (Filed on 4/23/2009) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
213 ERRATA by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND SECOND CORRECTED MOTION TO STRIKE THE EXPERT REPORTS OF BARBARA F. RESKIN, Ph.D.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, # 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND CORRECTED MOTION TO STRIKE THE EXPERT REPORT OF RICHARD DROGIN, Ph.D.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, # 3 CORRECTED DECLARATION OF ROMAN M. SILBERFELD IN SUPPORT THEREOF, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C − part 1 of 3, # 7 Exhibit C − part 2 of 3, # 8 Exhibit C − part 3 of 3, # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E, # 11 Exhibit F, # 12 Exhibit G, # 13 Exhibit H − part 1 of 2, # 14 Exhibit H − part 2 of 2, # 15 Exhibit I, # 16 Exhibit J, # 17 Exhibit K, # 18 Exhibit L, # 19 Exhibit M, # 20 Exhibit N, # 21 Exhibit O, # 22 Exhibit P, # 23 Exhibit Q, # 24 Exhibit R, # 25 Exhibit S, # 26 Exhibit T, # 27 Exhibit U)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 4/24/2009) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
214 ORDER PERMITTING THE USE OF VIDEO PROJECTOR AT THE APRIL 29, 2009 HEARINGS by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 212 Motion for Hearing (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2009) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
215 MOTION for Hearing PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO USE VIDEO PROJECTOR AT THE APRIL 29, 2009 HEARING ON BEST BUYS MOTIONS TO STRIKE THE EXPERT REPORTS OF DR. RICHARD DROGIN, Ph.D., AND DR. BARBARA F. RESKIN, Ph.D., AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 4/24/2009) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
216 Proposed Order re 215 MOTION for Hearing PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO USE VIDEO PROJECTOR AT THE APRIL 29, 2009 HEARING ON BEST BUYS MOTIONS TO STRIKE THE EXPERT REPORTS OF DR. RICHARD DROGIN, Ph.D., AND DR. BARBARA F. RESKIN, Ph.D., AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 34 of 50

04/27/2009 04/27/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009 04/29/2009
04/29/2009 04/30/2009 04/30/2009 05/04/2009 05/06/2009

Dixon. (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 4/24/2009) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
217 Statement re 185 Reply Memorandum,, Statement of Recent Decision Regarding Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings re Class Claim for Initial Job Assignments Under FEHA and Title VII, and Ex. A by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 4/27/2009) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
218 AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO USE VIDEO PROJECTOR AT THE APRIL 29, 2009 HEARING ON BEST BUYS MOTIONS TO STRIKE THE EXPERT REPORTS OF DR. RICHARD DROGIN, Ph.D., AND DR. BARBARA F. RESKIN, Ph.D., AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; [PROPOSED] ORDER by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 4/27/2009) Modified on 4/28/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/27/2009)
219 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO BRING IN EQUIPMENT re 218 Proposed Order, filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/28/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2009) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
220 Declaration of Jamie L. Crook Supplemental Declaration of Jamie L. Crook in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Strike the Expert Reports of Dr. Richard Drogin and Dr. Barbara Reskin filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Tab 3, # 2 Tab 4−A)(Crook, Jamie) (Filed on 4/28/2009) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
221 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 4/29/2009 before Phyllis J. Hamilton re 169 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings re Class Claim For Initial Job Assignments Under FEHA and Title VII; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., 168 MOTION to Strike Expert Reports of Richard Drogin, Ph.D. filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., 166 MOTION to Strike the Expert Reports of Barbara F. Reskin, Ph.D.; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. (Court Reporter Margo Gurule 415−522−2102) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/29/2009) Modified on 4/30/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2009)
***Deadlines terminated. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2009) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
222 MOTION Extension of Page Length For Class Certification Reply Memorandum filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Extending Page Length For Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Memorandum)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 4/30/2009) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
223 Declaration of Eve H. Cervantez in Support of 222 MOTION Extension of Page Length For Class Certification Reply Memorandum filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Related document(s) 222 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 4/30/2009) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
224 ORDER EXTENDING PAGE LENGHT FOR PLAINTIFFS' CLASS CERTIFICATION REPLY MEMORANDUM by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 222 Motion (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2009) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
225 MOTION to Seal REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS filed by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2009 09:00 AM.

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 35 of 50

05/06/2009 05/06/2009 05/06/2009
05/06/2009 05/06/2009 05/06/2009 05/06/2009 05/06/2009 05/12/2009

(Williams, Barbra) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
226 AFFIDAVIT re 225 MOTION to Seal REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS DECLARATION OF BARBRA L. WILLIAMS by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBIT A, # 2 Exhibit EXHIBIT B)(Williams, Barbra) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
227 Proposed Order re 225 MOTION to Seal REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Williams, Barbra) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
228 AFFIDAVIT re 156 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion REPLY DECLARATION OF DANIEL M. HUTCHINSON by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Tab 165, # 2 Tab 166, # 3 Tab 167, # 4 Tab 168, # 5 Tab 169, # 6 Tab 171, # 7 Tab 172, # 8 Tab 173, # 9 Tab 174, # 10 Tab 175, # 11 Tab 176, # 12 Tab 177, # 13 Tab 178, # 14 Tab 179, # 15 Tab 182, # 16 Tab 183, # 17 Tab 184, # 18 Tab 185, # 19 Tab 186, # 20 Tab 187, # 21 Tab 188, # 22 Tab 189, # 23 Tab 190, # 24 Tab 191, # 25 Tab 192, # 26 Tab 193, # 27 Tab 194, # 28 Tab 201A, # 29 Tab 204A, # 30 Tab 212, # 31 Tab 213)(Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
229 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon re 228 Affidavit,,, BY FEDERAL EXPRESS (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
230 Reply Memorandum PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
231 Reply Memorandum PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
232 Declaration of Camilla Roberson in Support of 230 Reply Memorandum, DECLARATION OF CAMILLA L. ROBERSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 230 ) (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
233 Declaration of Andrew P. Lee in Support of 230 Reply Memorandum, DECLARATION OF ANDREW P. LEE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS filed byAmy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Maurice Calhoun, Eric Blacksher, Jessica Treas, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Nicholas Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A 1 of 3, # 2 Exhibit A 2 of 3, # 3 Exhibit A 3 of 3, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 230 ) (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 5/6/2009) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
234 DECLARATION of Vincent S. Loh re 225 MOTION to Seal REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Sealing and Unsealing Documents filed by Plaintiffs in Support of Reply to Best Buy's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification)(Loh, Vincent) (Filed on 5/12/2009) Modified on 5/13/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/2009)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 36 of 50

05/20/2009 05/20/2009 05/20/2009 05/20/2009 05/20/2009 05/22/2009
05/28/2009 05/28/2009 06/01/2009 06/03/2009
07/02/2009 07/02/2009 07/06/2009

235 Reply Memorandum in Support of Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
236 Reply Memorandum Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to Evidence filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
237 Declaration of Lisa L. Heller in Support of 236 Reply Memorandum Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to Evidence filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Related document(s) 236 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
238 MOTION to Seal Document filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sarinya S. Teng, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Best Buy's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
239 NOTICE by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. of Manual Filing (Lodging) in Support of Best Buy's Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to Evidence (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
240 Transcript of Proceedings held on 04/29/09, before Judge PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON. Court Reporter/Transcriber MARGARET "MARGO" GURULE, Telephone number 415−504−4204 or margolargo@gmail.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/17/2009. (mng, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
241 ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 169 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
242 NOTICE by Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy Co., Inc. OF JOINT APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING THE USE OF VISUAL PRESENTATION EQUIPMENT AT THE JUNE 3, 2009 HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
243 ORDER PERMITTING THE USE OF VISUAL PRESENTATION EQUIPMENT AT THE JUNE 3, 2009 HEARING re 242 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/1/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
244 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/3/2009 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 6/3/2009) re 151 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as Class Counsel filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas, 156 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. (Court Reporter Debra Pas.) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/3/2009) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
245 Declaration of BEST BUY REGARDING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 79−5 AND COURTS JUNE 3, 2009 ORDER filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Teng, Sarinya) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
246 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Extend By Two Weeks The Deadline To Report To Court Re: Special Master by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
247 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BY TWO WEEKS THE DEADLINE TO REPORT TO COURT RE: SPECIAL MASTER re 246 Stipulation, filed by Eric

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 37 of 50

07/16/2009 07/20/2009
07/24/2009 07/31/2009 09/09/2009

Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/6/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2009) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
248 STATUS REPORT Re APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 7/16/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
249 Transcript of Proceedings held on 6−3−2009, before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Court Reporter/Transcriber Debra L. Pas, CSR, Telephone number (415) 431−1477. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/15/2009. (Pas, Debra) (Filed on 7/20/2009) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
250 Declaration of Benjamin M. Weiss − Amended Omnibus Declaration Regarding Documents Submitted Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5 and Court's June 3, 2009 Order filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Sealing of Documents)(Weiss, Benjamin) (Filed on 7/24/2009) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
251 Letter from Guy B. Wallace. (Wallace, Guy) (Filed on 7/31/2009) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
252 CLERKS NOTICE

Effective September 14, 2009, Judge Phyllis Hamilton's courtroom and chambers will be located in the Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom #3, 3rd floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612.

On or after September 14, 2009, all filings for matters pending on Judge Hamiltons docket, all court appearances, and all deliveries of chambers' copies of documents must be made at the Oakland Courthouse.

The days and times for law and motion calendars and all currently scheduled proceedings remain unchanged.

Please note that all of Judge Hamilton's case files will be moved to the Oakland Courthouse, therefore all cases numbers assigned to her will be changed slightly to reflect the correct venue. Previously, all case numbers started with "3:" to indicate the San Francisco office (Example: 3:09−cv−12345−PJH). As of September 14th, 2009, all of Judge Hamilton's case files will begin with "4:" to indicate the Oakland office, but everything else will stay the same (Example: 4:09−cv−12345−PJH). When e−filing, using the short case number format will always avoid problems when searching for the correct case: 09−12345 (YY−NNNNN).

For information on the Oakland Courthouse's accessibility, parking, driving directions, public transit, hotels and other helpful links, please visit our website: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, click on "Court Information" on the right hand side of our main page, then select the Oakland link under "Address and Jurisdiction". The main telephone number for the Oakland Division is 510 637−3530.

09/09/2009 02/24/2010

(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
253 Letter from Guy B. Wallace. (Wallace, Guy) (Filed on 9/9/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
254 Best Buy's Request for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 2/24/2010) Modified on 2/25/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2010)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 38 of 50

03/02/2010 03/08/2010 03/09/2010 03/31/2010 04/07/2010 05/03/2010 05/05/2010 05/06/2010 05/17/2010 05/28/2010
06/30/2010 07/20/2010

255 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Roman M. Silberfeld (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 3/2/2010) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
256 ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 254 Motion for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decision. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2010) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
257 ORDER by Judge Hamilton Staying Ruling on 156 Class Certification Motion; Requesting Additional Briefing; Denying 150 167 178 200 204 225 238 Sealing Requests (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2010) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
258 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
259 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re 258 Stipulation, filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/7/10. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2010) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
260 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 5/3/2010) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
261 MOTION for Leave to File SUPPLEMENTAL DISCUSSION OF THE IMPACT OF THE EN BANC RULING IN DUKES V. WALMART ON CLASS CERTIFICATION filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eve H. Cervantez, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 5/5/2010) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
262 ORDER by Judge Hamilton re 261 Class Certification Briefing (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2010) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
263 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 5/17/2010) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
264 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING re 263 Stipulation, filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. Motions terminated: 150 MOTION to Seal PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION; ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas, 156 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice of Motion filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas, 151 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as Class Counsel filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas.. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/28/10. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2010) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
265 STIPULATION by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas, Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 6/30/2010) Modified on 7/1/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/30/2010)
266 MOTION to Appoint Counsel PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS CLASS COUNSEL filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel,

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 39 of 50

07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010
07/21/2010
07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010

Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF GUY B. WALLACE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS CLASS COUNSEL, # 2 DECLARATION OF EVE H. CERVANTEZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS CLASS COUNSEL, # 3 DECLARATION OF BILL LANN LEE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS CLASS COUNSEL, # 4 DECLARATION OF KELLY M. DERMODY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL)(Wallace, Guy) (Filed on 7/20/2010) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
267 MOTION to Certify Class Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification and Bifurcation filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
268 Declaration of Daniel M. Hutchinson in Support of 267 MOTION to Certify Class Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification and Bifurcation filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 267 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
269 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, CT1 to CT19 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 CT2, # 2 CT3, # 3 CT4, # 4 CT5, # 5 CT6, # 6 CT7, # 7 CT8, # 8 CT9, # 9 CT10, # 10 CT11, # 11 CT12, # 12 CT13, # 13 CT14, # 14 CT15, # 15 CT16, # 16 CT17, # 17 CT18, # 18 CT19)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
270 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, DT1 to DT34 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 DT2, # 2 DT3, # 3 DT4, # 4 DT5, # 5 DT6, # 6 DT7, # 7 DT8, # 8 DT9, # 9 DT10, # 10 DT11, # 11 DT12, # 12 DT13, # 13 DT14, # 14 DT15, # 15 DT16, # 16 DT17, # 17 DT18, # 18 DT19, # 19 DT20, # 20 DT21, # 21 DT22, # 22 DT23, # 23 DT24, # 24 DT25, # 25 DT26, # 26 DT27, # 27 DT28, # 28 DT29, # 29 DT30, # 30 DT31, # 31 DT32, # 32 DT33, # 33 DT34)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
271 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D1 to D5 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D2, # 2 D3, # 3 D4, # 4 D5)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
272 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D6 to D10 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D7, # 2 D8, # 3 D9, # 4 D10)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
273 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D11 to D20 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D12, # 2 D13, # 3 D14, # 4 D15, # 5 D16, # 6 D17, # 7 D18, # 8 D19, # 9 D20)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
274 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D21 to D30 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D22, # 2 D23, # 3 D24, # 4 D25, # 5 D26, # 6 D27, # 7 D28, # 8 D29, # 9 D30)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
275 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D31 to D40 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D32, # 2 D33, # 3 D34, # 4 D35, # 5 D36, # 6 D37, # 7 D38, # 8 D39, # 9 D40)(Related

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 40 of 50

07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010

document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
276 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D41 to D50 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D42, # 2 D43, # 3 D44, # 4 D45, # 5 D46, # 6 D47, # 7 D48, # 8 D49, # 9 D50)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
277 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D51 to D60 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D52, # 2 D53, # 3 D54, # 4 D55, # 5 D56, # 6 D57, # 7 D58, # 8 D59, # 9 D60)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
278 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D71 to D79 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D72, # 2 D73, # 3 D74, # 4 D75, # 5 D76, # 6 D77, # 7 D78, # 8 D79)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
279 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D61 to D65 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D62, # 2 D63, # 3 D64, # 4 D65)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
280 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D66 to D70 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D67, # 2 D68, # 3 D69, # 4 D70)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
281 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D80 to D90 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D81, # 2 D82, # 3 D83, # 4 D84, # 5 D85, # 6 D86, # 7 D87, # 8 D88, # 9 D89, # 10 D90)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
282 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D91 to D98 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D92, # 2 D93, # 3 D94, # 4 D95, # 5 D96, # 6 D97, # 7 D98)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
283 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, D99 to D102 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 D100, # 2 D101, # 3 D102)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
284 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX1 to EX9 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX2, # 2 EX3, # 3 EX4, # 4 EX5, # 5 EX6, # 6 EX7, # 7 EX8, # 8 EX9)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
285 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX 10 to EX 16 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX11, # 2 EX12, # 3 EX13, # 4 EX14, # 5 EX15, *** # 6 EX16 FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 308 . *** )(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) Modified on 7/22/2010 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/2010)
286 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX17 to EX24 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX18, # 2

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 41 of 50

07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010

EX19, # 3 EX20, # 4 EX21, # 5 EX22, # 6 EX23, # 7 EX24)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
287 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX25 to EX30 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX26, # 2 EX27, # 3 EX28, # 4 EX29, # 5 EX30)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
288 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX31 to EX37 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX32, # 2 EX33, # 3 EX34, # 4 EX35, # 5 EX36, # 6 EX37)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
289 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX38 to EX43 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX39, # 2 EX40, # 3 EX41, # 4 EX42, # 5 EX43)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
290 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX44 to EX46 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX45, # 2 EX46)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
291 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX47 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
292 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX48 − part 1 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
293 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX48 − part 2 to EX49 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX49)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
294 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX50 to EX51 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX51)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
295 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX52 to EX53 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX53)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
296 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX54 to EX56 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX55, # 2 EX56)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
297 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX57 to EX60 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX58, # 2 EX59, # 3 EX60)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 42 of 50

07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010

298 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX61 to EX63 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX62, # 2 EX63)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
299 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX64 to EX70 − Part 1 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX65, # 2 EX66, # 3 EX67, # 4 EX68, # 5 EX69, # 6 EX70 − Part 1)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
300 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX70 − Part 2 to EX70 − Part 3 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 EX70 − Part 3)(Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
301 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX70 − Part 4 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
302 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX70 − Part 5 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
303 Request for Judicial Notice re 267 MOTION to Certify Class Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification and Bifurcation filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (EX 68 − Velez Order))(Related document(s) 267 ) (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
304 Memorandum in Support re 267 MOTION to Certify Class Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification and Bifurcation filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 267 ) (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 7/21/2010) Modified on 7/22/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/2010)
305 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, EX13 − Part 2 filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 268 ) (Dermody, Kelly) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
306 Master List of EXHIBITS re 267 MOTION to Certify Class Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification and Bifurcation Master Exhibit List filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 267 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) Modified on 7/22/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/21/2010)
307 Proposed Order re 267 MOTION to Certify Class Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification and Bifurcation, 266 MOTION to Appoint Counsel PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS CLASS COUNSEL by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
308 EXHIBITS re 268 Declaration in Support, CORRECTION OF DOCKET #[285−6] filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 268 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 43 of 50

07/22/2010
07/22/2010
08/05/2010
08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/13/2010
08/18/2010 08/24/2010 08/27/2010 08/31/2010 09/03/2010 10/05/2010 10/27/2010
10/27/2010

309 NOTICE by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas re 267 MOTION to Certify Class Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification and Bifurcation, 306 Exhibits, OF ERRATA RE: MASTER LIST OF EXHIBITS (Attachments: *** # 1 Exhibit MASTER LIST OF EXHIBITS FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 310 . *** )(Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/22/2010) Modified on 7/22/2010 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2010)
310 AMENDED Master List of EXHIBITS CORRECTION OF DOCKET #[ 309 −1] filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 309 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 7/22/2010) Modified on 7/23/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2010)
311 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' July 21, 2010 Motion For Class Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paul C. Evan in Support of Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' July 21, 2010 Motion For Class Certification, # 2 Proposed Order)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 8/5/2010) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
312 ORDER Shortening Time re Defendants' Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 8/6/2010. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2010) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
***9/15/2010 Hearing terminated re 311 MOTION to Strike (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2010) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
313 Memorandum in Opposition re 311 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' July 21, 2010 Motion For Class Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/13/2010) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
314 Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of re 311 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' July 21, 2010 Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 8/18/2010) Modified on 8/19/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2010)
315 NOTICE of Change of Address by Bill Lann Lee (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 8/24/2010) (Entered: 08/24/2010)
316 ORDER by Judge Hamilton Denying 311 Motion to Strike (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2010) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
317 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Class Certification Briefing by Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 8/31/2010) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
318 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING re 317 Stipulation filed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/3/10. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2010) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
319 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by David Martinez (Martinez, David) (Filed on 10/5/2010) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
320 Memorandum in Opposition to 267 Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Master List of Exhibits, # 2 Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/27/2010) Modified on 10/28/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/27/2010)
321 Declaration of David Martinez in Support of 320 Best Buy's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits: Exp Rep−1(a) to Exp Rep−5(b), # 2 Exhibits: Dec−1 to Dec−2, # 3 Exhibits: Dec−3 to Dec−5, # 4 Exhibits: Dep(Exp)−1 to Dep(Exp)−2(b), # 5 Exhibit: Dep(Exp)−3, # 6 Exhibits: Dep(Co)−1(a) to Dep(Co)−10, # 7 Exhibits: Dep(Co)−11 to Dep(Co)−19, # 8 Exhibits: Dep(P)−1 to Dep(P)−7, # 9 Exhibits: Dep(FW)−1 to Dep(FW)−23)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/27/2010) Modified on 10/28/2010 (vlk,

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 44 of 50

10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
10/27/2010 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 10/28/2010 10/28/2010 11/01/2010 12/06/2010

COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/27/2010)
322 EXHIBITS re 321 Declaration in Support,, of Best Buy's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits: Doc(13) to Doc(20), # 2 Exhibits: Doc(21) to Doc(29), # 3 Exhibit: Doc(30) − Part 1 of 4, # 4 Exhibit: Doc(30) − Part 2 of 4, # 5 Exhibit: Doc(30) − Part 3 of 4, # 6 Exhibit: Doc(30) − Part 4 of 4, # 7 Exhibits: Doc(31) to Doc(37), # 8 Exhibits: Doc(38) to Doc(40), # 9 Exhibit: Doc(41))(Related document(s) 321 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/27/2010) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
323 EXHIBITS re 321 Declaration in Support,, of Best Buy's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit: Doc(43), # 2 Exhibit: Doc(44) − Doc(49), # 3 Exhibit: Doc(50), # 4 Exhibits: Doc(51) − Doc(57), # 5 Exhibits: Doc(58) − Doc(65), # 6 Exhibits: Doc(66) − Doc(72), # 7 Exhibits: Doc(73) − Doc(80), # 8 Exhibits: Doc(81) − Doc(86), # 9 Exhibits: Doc(87) − Doc(89))(Related document(s) 321 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/27/2010) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
324 *** ATTACHMENTS 3 − 7 FILED IN ERROR WITH CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION . DOCUMENT LOCKED. REFER TO DOCUMENT 328 .*** EXHIBITS re 321 Declaration in Support,, of Best Buy's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits: Doc(96) − Doc(103), # 2 Exhibits: Doc(104) − Doc(107), # 3 Exhibit: Doc(108), # 4 Exhibit: Doc(108a) − Part 1 of 4, # 5 Exhibit: Doc(108a) − Part 2 of 4, # 6 Exhibit: Doc(108a) − Part 3 of 4, # 7 Exhibit: Doc(108a) − Part 4 of 4)(Related document(s) 321 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/27/2010) Modified on 10/27/2010 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/27/2010)
325 EXHIBITS re 321 Declaration in Support,, of Best Buy's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits: Doc(110) − Doc(118), # 2 Exhibits: Doc(119) − Doc(136))(Related document(s) 321 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/27/2010) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
326 Evidentiary Objections in Support of 320 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/27/2010) Modified on 10/28/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/27/2010)
327 Declaration of Vincent S. Loh in Support of 326 Brief of Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A to S)(Related document(s) 326 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/27/2010) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
328 EXHIBITS re 321 Declaration in Support,, of Best Buy's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit: Doc(108a) Part 1 of 7, # 2 Exhibit: Doc(108a) Part 2 of 7, # 3 Exhibit: Doc(108a) Part 3 of 7, # 4 Exhibit: Doc(108a) Part 4 of 7, # 5 Exhibit: Doc(108a) Part 5 of 7, # 6 Exhibit: Doc(108a) Part 6 of 7, # 7 Exhibit: Doc(108a) Part 7 of 7)(Related document(s) 321 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 10/27/2010) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
329 ERRATA RE EXHIBITS DOC 108 , DOC (108A), AND DOC 110 TO THE DECLARATION OF DAVID MARTINEZ IN SUPPORT OF BEST BUY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Loh, Vincent) (Filed on 10/28/2010) Modified on 10/29/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/2010)
330 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PORTIONS OF DOCKET ITEM NO. 324 by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Loh, Vincent) (Filed on 10/28/2010) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
331 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PORTIONS OF DOCKET ITEM NO. 324 re 330 Stipulation filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/1/10. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2010) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
332 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Extending The Time for Plaintiffs to File Their Reply Brief In Support of Class Certification by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun,

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 45 of 50

12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/07/2010 12/07/2010 12/08/2010 12/08/2010 12/10/2010 12/10/2010
12/10/2010 12/10/2010 12/13/2010

Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 12/6/2010) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
333 MOTION to Stay filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Staying Case Pending Decision By The United States Supreme Court In Dukes v. Walmart)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 12/6/2010) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
334 Declaration of Eve H. Cervantez in Support of 333 MOTION to Stay filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 333 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 12/6/2010) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
335 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay 333 filed byBest Buy Stores, L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay, # 2 Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay)(Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 12/7/2010) Modified on 12/8/2010 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2010)
336 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE REPLY BRIEF re 332 Stipulation, filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/7/10. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2010) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
337 ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting in part and Denying in part 333 Administrative Motion to Stay (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2010) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
338 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to File Documents Previously Lodged Under Seal in the Public Record by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 12/8/2010) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
339 Reply Memorandum re 267 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 12/10/2010) Modified on 12/13/2010 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2010)
340 Reply Declaration of Daniel M. Hutchinson in Support of 339 Reply Memorandum filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CT14−1, # 2 Exhibit CT19−1, # 3 Exhibit CT20, # 4 Exhibit DT29−1, # 5 Exhibit 6−1, # 6 Exhibit 71, # 7 Exhibit 72, # 8 Exhibit 73, # 9 Exhibit 74)(Related document(s) 339 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 12/10/2010) Modified on 12/13/2010 (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2010)
341 EXHIBITS re 339 Reply Memorandum, Master List of Exhibits filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 339 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 12/10/2010) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
342 EXHIBITS re 340 Declaration in Support,, Exhibit 13−A filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 340 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 12/10/2010) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
343 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY LODGED UNDER SEAL IN THE PUBLIC RECORD re 338 Stipulation, filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/13/10. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2010) (Entered: 12/13/2010)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 46 of 50

12/15/2010
12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010
12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 01/19/2011 06/17/2011

344 EXHIBITS re 170 Declaration in Support Exhibits B, C, D, F, G, H, I, and L Previously Submitted Under Seal to the Corrected Declaration of Roman M. Silberfeld filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C − Part 1 of 3, # 2 Exhibit C − Part 2 of 3, # 3 Exhibit C − Part 3 of 3, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit F, # 6 Exhibit G, # 7 Exhibit H, # 8 Exhibit I, # 9 Exhibit L)(Related document(s) 213 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 12/15/2010) Modified on 12/16/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2010)
345 EXHIBITS re 170 Declaration in Support Exhibits N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T Previously Submitted Under Seal to the Corrected Declaration of Roman M. Silberfeld filed by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N − Part 2 of 2, # 2 Exhibit O, # 3 Exhibit P, # 4 Exhibit Q, # 5 Exhibit R, # 6 Exhibit S, # 7 Exhibit T)(Related document(s) 213 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 12/15/2010) Modified on 12/16/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2010)
346 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 168 MOTION to Strike Expert Reports of Richard Drogin, Ph.D. filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 168 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 12/15/2010) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
347 EXHIBITS re 180 Declaration in Support,, 2, 4B, 4C, 8, 9, 10, 11, 21, 24, 25, & 27 Previously Submitted Under Seal to the Declaration of Jamie L. Crook in Support of Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Defendants' Motions to Strike the Expert Reports of Dr. Richard Drogin and Dr. Barbara Reskin filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 4B, # 2 4C, # 3 8, # 4 9, # 5 10, # 6 11, # 7 21, # 8 24, # 9 25, # 10 27)(Related document(s) 180 ) (Hutchinson, Daniel) (Filed on 12/15/2010) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
348 EXHIBITS re 199 Declaration in Support,, − Exhibit R Previously Submitted Under Seal to the Declaration of Roman M. Silberfeld in Support of Best Buy's Replies in Support of Motions to Strike the Expert Reports of Drs. Richard Drogin and Barbara F. Reskin filed byBest Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P.. (Related document(s) 199 ) (Silberfeld, Roman) (Filed on 12/15/2010) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
349 RESPONSE TO 326 DEFENDANTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 12/15/2010) Modified on 12/16/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2010)
350 Declaration of Andrew P. Lee IN SUPPORT OF 349 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 12/15/2010) Modified on 12/16/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2010)
351 OBJECTIONS TO 321 DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 12/15/2010) Modified on 12/16/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2010)
352 Declaration of Andrew P. Lee IN SUPPORT OF 349 PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 12/15/2010) Modified on 12/16/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2010)
353 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by David Martinez (Martinez, David) (Filed on 1/19/2011) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
354 MOTION for (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes; and (3) Setting of Schedule for Final Approval; and Memorandum In Support filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza,

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 47 of 50

06/17/2011 06/17/2011 06/17/2011 06/28/2011 08/03/2011
08/03/2011 08/04/2011 08/17/2011

Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. Motion Hearing set for 8/3/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 7/1/2011. Replies due by 7/8/2011. (Finberg, James) (Filed on 6/17/2011) Modified on 6/20/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2011)
355 Proposed Order re 354 MOTION for (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes; and (3) Setting of Schedule for Final Approval by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to [Proposed] Preliminary Approval Order, # 2 Exhibit A to Consent Decree, # 3 Exhibit B to Consent Decree, # 4 Exhibit C to Consent Decree, # 5 Exhibit D to Consent Decree, # 6 Exhibit 2 to [Proposed] Preliminary Approval Order)(Finberg, James) (Filed on 6/17/2011) Modified on 6/20/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2011)
356 Declaration of Daniel M. Hutchinson in Support of 354 MOTION for (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 354 ) (Finberg, James) (Filed on 6/17/2011) Modified on 6/20/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2011)
357 Declaration of James M. Finberg in Support of 354 MOTION for (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 354 ) (Finberg, James) (Filed on 6/17/2011) Modified on 6/20/2011 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/17/2011)
358 NOTICE of Appearance by Caroline Place Cincotta (Cincotta, Caroline) (Filed on 6/28/2011) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
359 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/3/2011 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 8/3/2011) re 354 MOTION for (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes; and (3) Setting of Schedule for Final ApprovalMOTION for (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes; and (3) Setting of Schedule for Final ApprovalMOTION for (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes; and (3) Setting of Schedule for Final Approval filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. Final Hearing set for 11/9/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/3/2011) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
360 Proposed Order re 354 MOTION for (1) Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; (2) Conditional Certification of Settlement Classes; and (3) Setting of Schedule for Final Approval by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to [Proposed] Preliminary Approval Order, # 2 Exhibit A to Consent Decree, # 3 Exhibit B to Consent Decree, # 4 Exhibit C to Consent Decree, # 5 Exhibit D to Consent Decree, # 6 Exhibit 2 to [Proposed] Preliminary Approval Order)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/3/2011) Modified on 8/4/2011 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/03/2011)
361 ORDER 1) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE; 2) PROVISIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES; 3) APPROVING AND DIRECTING DISTRIBUTION OF NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT; AND 4) SETTING A SCHEDULE FOR THE FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL PROCESS by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 354 Motion for Settlement (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
362 MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Jasmen Holloway. Motion Hearing set for 11/9/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 8/31/2011. Replies due by 9/7/2011. (Lee, Andrew)

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 48 of 50

08/17/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011
08/17/2011
08/17/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011 10/12/2011

(Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
363 Appendix re 362 MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES APPENDIX OF NAMED PLAINTIFF DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS filed byJasmen Holloway. (Related document(s) 362 ) (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
364 Declaration of Daniel M. Hutchinson in Support of 362 MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed byJasmen Holloway. (Related document(s) 362 ) (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
365 Proposed Order re 362 MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by Jasmen Holloway. (Lee, Andrew) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
366 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. Motion Hearing set for 11/9/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 10/1/2011. Replies due by 10/12/2011. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
367 Proposed Order re 366 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
368 Declaration of Eve H. Cervantez in Support of 366 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Related document(s) 366 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
369 Declaration of Kelly M. Dermody in Support of 366 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D Part 1 of 2, # 5 Exhibit D Part 2 of 2, # 6 Exhibit E Part 1 of 3, # 7 Exhibit E Part 2 of 3, # 8 Exhibit E Part 3 of 3, # 9 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 366 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
370 Declaration of Jeffrey Lewis in Support of 366 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 366 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
371 Declaration of Bill Lann Lee in Support of 366 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B1 − B4, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 366 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
372 Declaration of Guy B. Wallace in Support of 366 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B1 − B5, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 366 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 8/17/2011) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
373 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Unopposed Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 49 of 50

10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011 11/09/2011

Support of Final Approval; and Reply Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support of Plaintiffs' Motions For Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs and For An Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. Motion Hearing set for 11/9/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 10/26/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Revised Proposed] Order (1) Confirming Final Certification of Classes and (2) Granting Final Approval to Class Action Settlement and Consent Decree, # 2 Proposed Order [Revised Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, # 3 Proposed Order [Revised Proposed] Order Approving Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs, # 4 Proposed Order [Proposed] Final Judgment)(Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
374 Declaration of Eve H. Cervantez in Support of 373 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Unopposed Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Final Approval; and Reply Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 373 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
375 Declaration of Hazel A. Mottershead in Support of 373 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Unopposed Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Final Approval; and Reply Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support Regarding Notice Dissemination filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 373 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
376 Declaration of Paul C. Evans in Support of 373 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Unopposed Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Final Approval; and Reply Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 373 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
377 Declaration of Steven Hurst in Support of 373 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Unopposed Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Final Approval; and Reply Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 373 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
378 Declaration of Kelly Groehler in Support of 373 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Unopposed Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Final Approval; and Reply Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 373 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
379 Declaration of Randy White in Support of 373 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Unopposed Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Final Approval; and Reply Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support filed byEric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Cheryl Chappel, Nicholas Dixon, Amy Garcia, Jasmen Holloway, Muembo Muanza, Lawrence Santiago, Jr, Jessica Treas. (Related document(s) 373 ) (Cervantez, Eve) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
380 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 11/9/2011 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 11/9/2011) re 362 MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS TO NAMED

Case: 4:05-cv-5056 As of: 12/14/2018 10:26 AM PST 50 of 50

11/09/2011
11/09/2011 11/09/2011 11/09/2011 06/14/2012 12/07/2012 12/05/2013 12/09/2014 12/08/2015 06/27/2016

PLAINTIFFS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Jasmen Holloway, 373 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Unopposed Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Final Approval; and Reply Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas, 366 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses filed by Eric Blacksher, Maurice Calhoun, Jasmen Holloway, Amy Garcia, Cheryl Chappel, Lawrence Santiago, Jr., Nicholas Dixon, Muembo Muanza, Jessica Treas. (Court Reporter Sarah Goekler.) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/9/2011) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
381 ORDER 1)CONFIRMING FINAL CERTIFICATION OF CLASSES AND 2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 373 Motion for Settlement (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
382 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 366 Motion for Attorney Fees (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
383 ORDER APPROVING SERVICE AWARDS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 362 Motion (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
384 FINAL JUDGMENT, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/9/11. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
385 NOTICE by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. (of filing − Certificate of Compliance) (Stohner, George) (Filed on 6/14/2012) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
386 NOTICE by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. (of filing − Certificate of Compliance) (Stohner, George) (Filed on 12/7/2012) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
387 NOTICE by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. (of filing − Certificate of Compliance) (Stohner, George) (Filed on 12/5/2013) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
388 NOTICE by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. of Filing (Certification of Compliance) (Robinson, Blair) (Filed on 12/9/2014) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
389 Certification of Compliance by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. (Riechert, Melinda) (Filed on 12/8/2015) Modified on 12/9/2015 (vlkS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2015)
390 NOTICE by Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P. of Filing (Certification of Compliance) (Robinson, Blair) (Filed on 6/27/2016) (Entered: 06/27/2016)