-.

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 1 Filed 05/06/1999 Page 1 of 6

~

'-- F \LE.D

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Bk

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORID~ M~'( ...6 "M \0: 24

TAMPA DIVISION

MniUnJ, Klt l~~~')Mb~r_lAW.~f\lRO~RyI1Df~Cl(11Il0{R\ui:"

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

MID-STATE MACHINE & FABRICATING

)

CORPORATION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
C?1' 1011- (!r /J./.- :706-
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §12101 ~ ~., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to James E. Nolan and similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in paragraphs 7 - 11, the Commission alleges that Defendant Mid-State Machine & Fabricating Corp. ("Mid-State") regarded Mr. Nolan as disabled based on the results of a preemployment medical examination and, as a direct result, denied him employment in a position for which he was qualified. In addition, the Commission alleges that Mid-State's employment policies for at least three of its positions are in violation of the ADA as they require all applicants for those positions to submit to a prohibited pre-employment medical examination and they deny employment opportunities to qualified individuals because they are regarded by Defendant to be disabled based on that pre-employment medical examination.
/

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 1 Filed 05/06/1999 Page 2 of 6
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is also authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I ofthe ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Mid-State has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Lakeland, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Mid-State has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections
701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 u.s.c. §§2000e(g) and (h).
2

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 1 Filed 05/06/1999 Page 3 of 6
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Mid-State has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, James E. Nolan filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant Mid-State. Mr. Nolan is a "qualified individual with a disability" under Section 101(8) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(8). All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Since at least January 1, 1993, Defendant Mid-State has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Lakeland, Florida facility in violation of Sections 102(a), 102(b)(1), 102(b)(6) and 102(d)(2)(A) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§12112(a), 12112(b)(I), 12112(b)(6) and 12112(d)(2)(A).
a. Defendant Mid-State denied employment to James E. Nolan and other similarly situated individuals because it regarded them as disabled within the meaning of the ADA; and
b. Defendant Mid-State has maintained and enforced employment policies for at least three positions, "FitterlWelder", "Machinist", and "Mechanical", which require an employment test that screens out a class of qualified individuals who are regarded as disabled within the meaning ofthe ADA; and
c. Defendant Mid-State has maintained and enforced employment policies for at least three positions, "FitterlWelder", "Machinist" and "Mechanical", under which it has conducted prohibited pre-employment medical examinations of 3

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 1 Filed 05/06/1999 Page 4 of 6
all applicants for those positions. 9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 8 above has been to deprive James E. Nolan and other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants for employment because they are regarded as being disabled. 10. The unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were intentional. 11. Defendant Mid-State, at all relevant times, has acted with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Nolan and other similarly situated individuals it subjected to prohibited pre-employment medical examinations and regarded as disabled, in violation of the ADA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Mid-State, its officers, management personnel, employees, agents, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability. B. Order Defendant Mid-State to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities to qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
c. Order Defendant Mid-State to make whole James E. Nolan and other similarly
situated individuals adversely affected by the unlawful employment policies described above, by 4

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 1

- Filed 05/06/1999 Page 5 of 6

providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices including rightful-place hiring and seniority.
D. Order Defendant Mid-State to make whole James E. Nolan and other similarly situated individuals adversely affected by the unlawful employment policies described above, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Mid-State to make whole James E. Nolan and other similarly situated individuals adversely affected by the unlawful employment policies described above, by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life in amounts to be proved at trial.
F. Order Defendant Mid-State to pay James E. Nolan and similarly situated individuals adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices described above, punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraph 8 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
O. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

5

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 1

Filed 05/06/1999 Page 6 of 6
-

WRY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

Respectfully Submitted,
C.GREGORYSTEWART General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney
GILBERT CARRILLO Supervisory Trial Attorney

u.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION One Biscayne Tower Two S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite #2700 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 530-6008 - Telephone (305) 536-4494 - Facsimile

6

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 22 Filed 02/09/2001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Page 1 of 1
~
"J;

I

I

• ~ ,

EQUALENWLOYMENTOPPOR~TY
COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO: 8:99-cv-l091-T-26TBM

MID-STATE MACHINE & FABRICATING CORPORATION,

Defendant.
----------------------------~/
ORDER

This Court has been advised by both counsel that the above-styled action has been

settled. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 3.08(b), M.D.Fla., it is ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED that this cause is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and subject to the

right ofthe parties, within sixty (60) days ofthe date of this order, to submit a stipulated

form of fmal order or judgment should they so choose or for any party to move to reopen

the action, upon good cause shown. After that 60-day period, however, dismissal shall be

with prejudice. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed

to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on February 9, 2001.

RICHARD A.ILJL""'lUlu~L""IUL~ UNITED STA ES DISTRICT JUDGE COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record

··1 CI 7' It':' wcth

 
 ." Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 1 of 22 1'itED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

n'rJ

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OJ APR r~AM ". 35

TAMPADNISION

•

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
MID-STATE MACHINE & FABRICATING CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.

}

99-1091-CIV-T-26E

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE 1. This Consent Decree (the "Decree") is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" or "EEOC") and Defendant, Mid-State Machine & Fabricating Corporation (herein after referred to as "Mid-State"). The Commission and Mid-State are collectively referred to as the "Parties". 2. On May 6, 1999, the Commission initiated this suit against Mid-State in the United States District Court for the Middle District ofFlorida, Tampa Division, Civil Action No.: 99-1091CIV-T-26E, based upon a charge filed by James Nolan (EEOC Charge No. 151 96 1770). The Complaint alleges that Mid-State violated the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et • . (the "ADA") when it regarded Mr. Nolan as disabled based on the results ofa pre-employment medical examination and, as a direct result, denied him employment in a position for which he was qualified. In addition, the Complaint alleges

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 2 of 22
that Mid-8tate's anployment policiea for at least tbRe ofits positions are in violation ofthe ADA as they require all applicants for those positions to submit to a prohibited pre-
employment medical examination and they deny employment opportunities to qualified individuals because they are regarded by Defendant as disabled based on that preemployment medical examination. 3. On or about July 27,1999, Mid-State filed its Answer and Affinnative Defenses to EEOC's Complaint, denying allegations contained in the EEOC's Complaint that its actions were unlawful or discriminatory and raising several affinnative defenses to the Complaint. 4. This Decree does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant. S. In the interests ofresolvmg this matter and as a result ofhavmg engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by the entry ofthis Decree. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns. 6. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims arising out of EEOC Charge Number 151 96 1770 and the Complaint filed in this action. and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims under the ADA that were made by the Commission in this action. 7. This Decree constitutes the complete agreement between the EEOC and Mid-State with respect to the matters referred to herein. No representations or inducements to compromise this action have been made, other than those recited or referenced in this Decree. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by all parties to this Decree and approved by the Court or ordered by the Court.
2

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 3 of 22
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court bavina carefully examined the terms and provisions ofthis
Decree. and based on the pleadings filed by the parties. it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 8. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and over the parties for the
purposes ofentering and enforcing this Decree. GENERAL IlUUNCTIVE PROVISIONS
9. Defendant Mid-State, its officers andIor employees, are enjoined from engaging in conduct which violates the ADA by makingpre-employment otTer medical inquiries ofapplicants for employment or by subjecting applicants for employment to pre-employment offer medical examinations.
10. Defendant Mid-State, its officers and/or employees, are enjoined from engaging in conduct which violates the ADA by denying employment opportunities to qualified individuals because of an actual disability, a record of a disability or because Defendant regards them as disabled.
E~IPLOYMENT POLICIES AND PRE-El\IPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS 11. Mid-State has revised its employment policies for its "Fitter'Welder", "Machinist" and
I
\ "Mechanical"positions. The employment policies accurately state the physical requirements ofeach position. In the event Mid-State detennines that, due to business necessity, it needs to administer a pre-emp)oyment medical examination. the employment policies have been revised to clearly state applicants' rights and requirements with respect. to such an examination. The revised policies are attached as Exhibit A and will become effective upon execution of this Decree by all parties and the Court. 12. In the even that Mid-State detennin~ that, due to business necessity, it needs to administer
3

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 4 of 22
a pre-employment medical examination, Mid-State shall require all physicians perfonnina its pre-employment medical examinations to visit its facility located at 2730 Mine and Mill
Road, Lakeland, Florida, to observe the performance of the jobs for which they are,
examining candidates and will continue to provide those physicians with CUI1'el\t and accurate job descriptions. In place ofpersonal visits to the facility, Mid-State may provide examining specialists with videotapes ofthe duties ofthe jobs for whicb they are examining candidates, if the physician is outside of the Lakeland, Florida, area 13. In the event that Mid-State detennines that. due to business necessity, it needs to administer a pre-employment medical examination, Mid-State's examining physician(s) shall conduct an individualized assessment of each candidate's ability to perform the pbysical requirements ofthe position which they were offered. That individualized assessment shall consist of: (a) review ofany past or ongoing medical history ofback injuries, ailments or problems. (b) a "functional work test" which requires lifting weights from five (5) to fifty (50)
pounds in 5-pound increments in different postures and durations reflective of the lifting requirements for the position at issue. (c) a musculoskeletal examination (pbysical examination of the back). 14. All candidates rejected for employment by Mid-State because of any physical condition or impainnent or any finding made during the individualized physical assessment, shall be informed of such rejection in writing by Mid-State within seven (7) days of the decision. The rejection notice shall contain a section wherein rejected candidates may request a second opinion (an "Appeal"). The rejectftJ:lnotice and request for an appeal are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 5 of 22

IS. Rejected candidates who wish to appeal the decision must complete the appal fonn and

return it to Mid-State within twenty (20) calendar days ofreceipt of the notice of rejection.

, 16. Within ten (10) calendar days after Mid-State receives the appeal request form. a second I opinion shall be requested from the independent physician chosen by the parties to serve as

its medical appeals officer:

Steven A. Field, M.D.• M.S.P.H. CONSULTANTS IN OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE
13201 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. MDC S6 Tampa, Florida 33612

17. The second opinion shall be based on the documentation of the candidate's original

individualized physical assessment for Mid-State and, if necessary in the opinion of the

medical appeals officer, a second physical examination or other testing of the candidate.

Mid-State shall not refuse to hire any candidate deemed qualified to perfonn the position at

issue by the medical appeals officer. Mid-State shall bear the cost of the second opinion.

TRAINING

18. Defendant Mid-State has established a written policy of compliance with the ADA, which

is attached as Exhibit C. Mid-State agrees that all its employees will have been provided

, I

,

with a complete copy of its policy ~thin 30 days of the entry ofthe becree.

19. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Mid-State's ADA policy, as well

as the revised employment policies referred to in Paragraph 11 above, Mid-StateVtill conduct

training for all of its managerial personnel regarding those policies. Such training will be

conducted in one-hour sessions to be held twice annually. The first training session will be

conducted within six months ofthe Court's execution ofthis Decree and the second session

will be conducted no later than six months after the first session. Thereafter the training

5

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 6 of 22

seasions will be held twice annuaIlydlrouahout the duration of this Decree. Mid-State

agrees to provide the EEOC at least two weeks notice before it conducts each training

session. with the date and location or1he session, copies of an training materials 10 be used
I I
at the training session, the name ofthe individual(s) who will be providing the training and

a list ofthe names and titles ofeach employee who will be in attendance. Additionally, Mid-

State agrees that EEOC shall, at the EEOC's discretion, be in attendance at the training

session.

POSTING

20. Defendant Mid-State agrees to post, and keep posted, the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit

D. The Notice shall be posted at all of Mid-State's facilities in a conspicuous location

accessible to all employees.

MONETARY RELIEF

21. The Parties agree that Defendant Mid-State will pay the sum of twenty thousand dollars

($20,000.00) to be divided among all eligible claimants identified and located by the EEOC

in this action. The claimants include Charging Party James Nolan and similarly situated

individuals ~mas Farrell and Travis Garriso,. The monies are to be dispersed as follows:

\ .

I

(a) Mid-State agrees to pay James Nolan a total of$3,200.00, which represents back pay.

Mid-State shall withhold appropriate amounts for federal state and local income tax

and social security withholding and shall issue a Form W-2 with respect to this

payment. Mid-State shall be responsible for the employer's share of any federal,

state or local income taxes, and social security withholdings. Mid-State also agrees

to pay James Nolan an additional sum of $10,000.00. in lieu of any compensatory

and/or punitive damages EEOC was seeking in this litigation and shall issue a form

6

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 7 of 22
1099 itemizing same. 80th paymenta shall issue within forty-five (45) dayI from the
Court's execution of this Decfte, and shall be made by certified check payable to
James Nolan a,nd forwarded to his address at 38S40 Monet Drive. Zephyrhills.
Florida 33540 by certified mail with a return receipt requested. Any additional sums paid to James Nolan in accordance with Paragraphs 21 (b), 21 (c). or 21 (d) shall be paid within ten (10) days of notification from EEOC that either Thomas Farrell or Travis Garrison is not able to perfonn the essential ftmctions ofthe position initially offered by Mid-State or that Thomas Farrell or Travis Garrison declined to undergo the individualized assessment outlined in Paragraph 21 (b). Mid-State shall issue a form 1099 itemizing any said additional sums. (b) Mid-State agrees to pay Steven A. Field. M.D.• M.S.P.H., a total of $800.00 to perfonn individualized assessments of Thomas Fmell and Travis Garrison to detennine whether they are able to perfonn the essential functions of the positions they were initially offered by Mid-State and thus entitled to compensation in this action. The monies shall be forwarded to Dr. Field within fifteen (15) days of the court's executi0l;l ofthis Decree. The results ofthe individualized assessment ofeach individual shall be forwarded to EEOC no later than sixty (60) days from the court's execution of this Decree. Should either individual choose not to undergo the individualized assessment, EEOC shall notify Mid-State and Mid-State shall pay the costs of the exam(s) to James Nolan as specified in Paragraph 21(a). (c) Upon receipt of results from the individualized assessment confirming that Thomas Farrell is able to perform~ essential functions of the position initially offered by
Mid-State, EEOC shall diJdfy Mid-State. Within ten (10) days of that notice, Mid-
7
.

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 8 of 22
State .haJJ pay Thomas Farrell a total ofS3.000,()Q which represents back pay. Mid-
State shall withhold appropriate amounts for federal state and local income tax and
social security withholding and shall issue a Fonn W-2 with respect to this payment.
Mid-State shalJ be responsible for the employer's share of any federal, stale or local income taxes, and social security withholdings. Payment shall be made by certified check payable to Thomas Farrell and forwarded to his address at 850 Lake Horny Drive, Lakelaud, Florida 33801, by certified mail with a return receipt requested.
Should Dr. Field detennine that Thomas Farrell is DOt able to perform the essential functions oftile position he was initially offered by Mid-State, the monies shall be paid to James Nolan as specified in Paragraph 21 (a).
(d) Upon receipt of results from the individualized assessment confirming that Travis Garrison is able to perform the essential functions ofthe position initially offered by Mid-State, EEOC shall notify Mid-State. Within ten (10) days of that notice, MidState shall pay Travis Garrison a total of$3.ooo.00 which represents back pay. MidState shall withhold appropriate amounts for federal stale and local income tax and social security withholding and shall issue a Fonn W-2 \\ith respect to this payment. Mid-State shall be responsible for the employer's share of any federal, state or local income taxes, and social security withholdings. Payment shall be made by certified check payable to Travis Garrison and forwarded to his address at 121 0 ~.E. First Street, Mulberry, Florida. 33860 by certified mail ~ith a return receipt requested. Should Dr. Field detennine that Thomas Farrell is not able to perform the essential functions of the position he was initially offered by ~id-State, the monies shall be paid to James ~olan as specified in Paragraph 21(a). 8

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 9 of 22
-
REPORTING
22. On a semi-annual basis beginning on September 1. 200 I, and for the duration ofthis Decree.
Defendant shall provide the EEOC Miami District Office with a listing of all managers recei\ing the training described in Paragraph 18. the date the individual was placed in a management or supervisory position, and the date of the training. 23. Semi-annually beginning with September 1,2001, Defendant Mid-State shall provide the EEOC with a list of all individuals denied employment because of any physical condition or impainnent or any finding made during the individualized physical assessment. The list will include each individual's name, address, social security number, the date he or she applied, the position applied for, the reason for rejection, and a statement as to whether the individual appealed the decision and the results of that appeal. 24. Defendant Mid-State shall provide the EEOC with verification of all monetary payments made pursuant to this Decree. 25. All reports made pursuant to this "eporting" section should be directed to Michael J. Farrell, Supervisory Trial Attorney, U.S.E.E.O.C., One Biscayne Tower. Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite #2700, Miami, Florida, 33131.
DURAnON AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS 26. The effective date of this Decree shall be its date of entry as an Order of the Court. 27. The Consent Decree shall continue in force and effect for a period of three (3) years from
entry of the Decree. 28. The Parties shall pay their own costs associated with this
9

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 10 of 22

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

10 by:

L ~o~masDate:

"I/ 5JO{
"

Regional Attorney

Miami District Office

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

m AGREED TO:
FOR

~STATE MACHIl'<c AND FABRICATING CORPORATION

by:

JJ.-.r Date: 3..~,o,

Bernard H. Gentry CLARK & CAMPBELL, P.A. 4740 Cleveland Heights Boulevard Lakeland, Florida

L SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this day o~fl:l-L-'________' 2001.

'0 EEOC y \oW-S_ ~ JIId Falin..".. Corp
C'YlI CIK 99-1091-CIV-T-26E
Conson~
10

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 11 of 22

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNlTED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

l~ JO by:

~~omasDate:

",/$}O/
r,

Regional Attorney Miami District Office United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131

AGREED TO: FOR D~~ ~-STATE MACHINE AND FABRICATING CORPORATION
by: ~ Date: 3...~..o\
Bernard H. Gentry CLARK & CAMPBELL, P.A. 4740 Cleveland Heights Boulevard Lakeland, Florida

SOORDERED,ADJUDGEDANDDECREED,this_dayof_ _ _ _ _ _,2001. United States District Judge

EEOC y Mid-S_ Madune II1d FabnCllbJlI Corp Civil Case No 99-109I-ClV-T-26E Coasent Doc:ree

10

- .; .

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 12 of 22

EXHIBIT A

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 13 of 22

EFFECI'IVE 03101101

MID STATE MAC;AllUCATING CORPORATION POLICY' . EMPLOYMENT
GENERAL J .,~. -ltEQUlREMENTS FOR I
FIll ERIWELDER POSITION

1. FITfERSIWELDERS SHALL BE EXPERIENCED IN THE FITTING AND

OCCASIONAL WELDING OPCOMPoNENT PARTS COMPRISING OFVAmOUS

METAL WELDMENTS.

...

2. EMPLOYEES SHALL BE Cj-ABLE OF PERFORMING MATHEMATICAL

REQUIREMENTS IN THE ·tAYOVT AND FITTING OF STRUcrtJRAL

COMPONENTS.
- ~'?~::~
3. EMPLOYEES SHALL BE PB1IICALLY ABLE TO PERFORM ALL LIFfING

REQUIREMENTS THAT ARlsta:NERALLY REQUIRED IN THE HEAVY

STEEL INDUSTRY.

'

4. FITTERIWELDER POSITIONS WILL REQUIRE LIFfING OF TOOLS AND
MATERIALS IN EXCESS OF 51 LBS. FREQUENT LIFfS ARE NECESSARY IN
EXTREMELY AWKWARB POSITIONS.

s. IN THE EVENT MID-ST .DETERMINES THAT, DUE TO BUSINESS

NECESSITY, IT NEEDS TO

A PRE-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATION TO

OFFERED A FITTERIWELDER PosmON,

THE COMPANY SHALL

EACH SUCH APPLICANT TO UNDERGO

A PHYSICAL EXAMINA

.. m~ OR HER BACK. THE SOLE PURPOSE

OF THE EXAMINATION \tILLSE TO DETERMI~ WHETHER THE

APPLICANT IS ABLE T{f;p~RM THE ESSENTIAL FUNcrIONS

OF THE FITTERIWELDER POsmo~.

6. IN THE EVENT MID-STATE DETERMINES THAT, DIJE TO BUSINESS

~CESSITY, IT NEEDS TO ADl\-UNISTER A PRE-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATION TO APPLICAlITS OFFERED A FlTl'ERIWELDER POsmON,

THE COMPANY'S OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT IS COl't.'1)mONAL UPON

RECEIPT OF RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL EXUUNATION CONFIRMING

.

.j

THAT THE APPLICANT IS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING THE ESSENTIAL

FUNCTIONS OF THE FITfERlWELDER POSITION.

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 14 of 22

EWECI1VE 03/01101

MID STATE MACHINE" FABRICATING CORPORATION POLICY OF EMPLOYMENT
GENERAL JOB REQUIREMENTS FOR MACHINIST POSITION

1. MACHINISTS SHALL BE EXPERIENCED IN THE AREA OF INDUSTRIAL REPAIR MACHINING A VARIETY OF SIZES AND SHAPES.

2. EMPLOYEES SHALL BE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING MATHEMATICAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE MACHINING OF VARIOUS COMPONENTS.

3. EMPLOYEES SHALL BE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO PERFORM ALL LIFI1NG REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE GENERALLY REQUIRED IN THE INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRY.

4. MACHINIST POSITIONS WB..L REQUIRE LIFTING OF TOOLS AND MATERIALS IN EXCESS OF SO LBS. FREQUENT LIFTS ARE NECESSARY IN EXTREMELY AWKWARD PosmONS.

5. IN THE EVENT MID-STATE DETERMINES THAT, DUE TO BUSINESS

NECESSITY, IT NEEDS TO ADMINISTER A PRE-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATION TO APPLICANTS OFFERED A MACHINIST POsmON, THE

COMPANY SHALL REQUIRE EACH SUCH APPLICANT TO UNDERGO A

PHYSICAL EXA.'fiNATlON OF ms OR HER BACK. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF

THE EXAMINATION WILL BE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICANT

IS ABLE TO PERFORM THE ESSEl',IAL FUNCTIONS OF THE MACHINIST

POSITION.

:

I

\

6. ll' THE EVENT MID-STATE DETERMI~"ES THAT, DUE TO BUSINESS

NECESSITY, IT NEEDS TO ADMINISTER A PRE-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATION TO APPLICANTS OFFERED A MACHINIST PosmON, THE

COMPANY'S OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT IS CONDmONAL UPON RECEIPT OF

RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION CONFIRMING THAT THE

APPLICANT IS CAPABLE OF PERFORMINGTHE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF

THE MACHINIST POSITION.

"- ~.

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 15 of 22

EFFEctIVE 03101/01

MID STATE MACHINE" FABRICATING CORPORATION POLICY OF EMPLOYMENT
Gf;NERAL.IOB REQUIREMENTS fOR MECHANICAL POSITION

1. MECHANICS SHALL BE EXPERIENCED IN ALL TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL MECHANICAL DISASSEMBLY AND ASSEMBLY OF COMPONENT PARTS COMPRISING OF VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL ASSEMBLIES, I.E. PUMPS, GEAR BOXES,ETC.
2. EMPLOYEES SHALL BE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO PERFORM ALL LIFtING REQUIREMENTS TBAT ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE INDUSTRIAL MECHANICAL INDUSTRY.
3. MECHANICAL POSITIONS WILL REQUIRE FREQL"ENT LIFTING OF TOOLS AND MATERIALS IN EXCESS OF50 LBS. FREQUENT LIFTS ARE NECESSARY IN EXTREMELY AWKWARB POSITIONS.
4. IN THE EVENT M1D-STATE DETERMINES THAT, DUE TO BUSINESS NECESSITY, IT NEEDS TO ADMINISTER A PRE·E.'1PLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION TO APPUCANTS OFFERED A MECHANICAL POsmON, THE COMPANY SHALL REQUIRE EACH SUCH APPUCANT TO UNDERGO A PHYSICAL EXAMVtATION OF HIS OR HER BACK. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE EXAMINAnON WILL BE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL FUNcrIO~S OF THE MECHANIC POSITION.
s. I~ THE EVENT MID-STATE DETERMINES THAT, DUE TO BUSINESS NECESSITY, IT NEEDS TO ADMINISTER A PRE·E..\IPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION TOAPPLICA,lIITS OFFERED A MECHANICAL POsmON, THE COMPANY'S OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT IS CONDITIONAL UPON RECEIPT OF RESULTS OF THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION CONFIRMING THAT THE APPLICANT IS CAPABLE Of PERFORMING THE ESSENTIAL FUNCI'IONS OF THE MECHANIC POSITION.

- ".

...

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 16 of 22

EXHIBITB

... .''r'' ---.

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 17 of 22

To: _ _ _ _ __

[Corporate Letterhead] Date: _ _ _ __

Re:

Results ofIndividualized Assessment

Dear Applicant:

As you know Mid-State Machine and Fabricating Corporation ("Mid-State") made an offer

ofemployment to you for an available

position. The offer was conditional upon

Mid-State's receipt of results from your physical examination confirming that you are capable of

performing the essential functions of that position, including lifting requirements in awkward

positions.

On

Mid-State received the results of your physical examination. Those

results indicate that you are not able to perform the essential functions ofthe position. As suc~ Mid-

State must revoke the conditional offer made to you.

Should you wish to request a second opinion you must check the box at the bottom ofthis notice and return it to Mid-State within 20 days ofthe date ofthis notice listed above. Upon receipt of your request for a second opinion Mid-State will make arrangements for a second examination with a different physician and infonn you ofsuch.

We regret that we are not able to employ you at this time.

Sincerely.

[Company Official]

I,

•hereby request a second opinion with respect the results

of my physical examination which determined that I am not able to perfonn the

essential functions of the

position at Mid-State Machine and

Fabricating Corporation.

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 18 of 22
EXHIBITC

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 19 of 22
[Corporate Letterhead]
MID-STATE MACHINE AND FABRICATING CORPORATION
EMPLOYMENT POUCY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABlLmES ACT OF 1990 (THE '''ADA")
Under Section 102 ofTitle I ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer:
(1) to limi~ segregate, or classify ajob applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status ofsuch applicant or employee because of the disability ofsuch applicant or employee;
(2) to participate in a contractual or other agreement or relationship that bas the effect of subjecting a covered entity's qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by the ADA (such relationship includes a relationship with an employment or refeml agency, labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs);
(3) to utilize standards, criteria, or methods of administration -
(A) that have the effect ofdiscrimination on the basis ofdisability; or
(B) that perpetuate the discrimination ofothers who are subject to common administrative control;
(4) to exclude or othel'\\ise deny equal jobs or benefits to a qualified iqdividual because, of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to\ have a relationship or association;
(5) (A) to not make reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an othet'\\ise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity; or
(B) to deny employment opportw:iides to a job applicant or employ~ who is an
otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant;

· ... .-..' '

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23

Filed 04/06/2001 Page 20 of 22

(6) to use qualificaboa JtaDcIards. employment testa or other selection criteria that screen
out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class ofindividuals with
disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria. as used by the covered
entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity; and
(7) to fail to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor ofsuch applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory manual, or speaking skills ofsuch employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).

MID-STATE WILL NOT engage in any of the above acts or practices.
MID-STATE WILL NOT discriminate or retaliate in any manner against any person because of opposition to any practice declared unlawful under the ADA or because of the filing ofacharge, the giving oftestimony or assistance, or the participation in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the ADA.
M1D-STATE WILL maintain and conduct all employment policies and practices in a manner which does not discriminate on the basis of disability or retaliation.
If any individual believes that they have been discriminated against in violation of the ADA they should report such to their immediate supervisor, or to the President Hal Kersey.

Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 21 of 22
• • .. ¥ .
EXHIBITD

..-. ~"--~~-----------=====~---------------------------------------
Case 8:99-cv-01091-RAL Document 23 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 22 of 22
(Compaily LcaerheadJ
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with respect to the case of EEOC v. Mid-State Machine and Fabricatin& Comoration, Civil Case No.: 99-109I-CIV-T-26E.
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (the "ADA"), prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. The ADA's prohibition includes the use of qualification standards. employment tests or other selection criteria that screen
out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities
unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be jobrelated for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity Mid-State does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities in violation of the ADA. Mid-State does not condone discrimination of any kind set forth in federal laws including, but not limited to, disability discrimination.
Mid-State assures its employees, and applicants for employment, that it will not discriminate or retaliate in any manner against any person because ofopposition to any practice declared unlawful under the ADA or because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or the participation in any investigation, proceeding, or bearing under the ADA.
Appropriate action, up to and including termination, shall be taken against any employee, including management personnel. found to violate the company's policies regarding the ADA.
Employees or applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under the ADA, or any other federal anti-discrimination law may call the EEOC's Miami District Office at 1800-669-4000.
Signed t~s _ _ _ _ day of ______,' 2001.
Hal Kersey President

 
 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 1 of 4

CLOSED, MEDIATION, TBM
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:99-cv-01091-RAL

EEOC v. Mid-State Machine Assigned to: Judge Richard A. Lazzara Demand: $0 Cause: Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

V.
Defendant
Mid-State Machine & Fabricating Corporation

Mediator Donald J. Spero

Date Filed

#

Date Filed: 05/06/1999 Date Terminated: 02/09/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Michael J. Farrell Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, PA Suite 200 180 Park Ave N Winter Park, FL 32789 407/647-8911 Fax: 407/628-4994 Email: mfarrell@schwartzlawfirm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard H. Gentry, Jr. Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. 500 S. Florida Avenue Suite 800 Post Office Box 24627 Lakeland, FL 33802 863/647-5337 Fax: 863/904-1293 Email: bgentry@ccmattorneys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald J. Spero # PO Box 32548 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420 561/627-6422 PRO SE
Docket Text

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?675286501345154-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 2 of 4

05/06/1999 05/06/1999 05/06/1999 05/14/1999 06/30/1999 06/30/1999 07/28/1999 08/13/1999 08/13/1999 08/19/1999
08/19/1999 02/25/2000 02/29/2000
03/10/2000 07/31/2000

1 COMPLAINT and demand for jury trial filed (bls) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Thomas B. McCoun III (bls) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
SUMMONS issued for Mid-State Machine. Consent issued. (bls) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
2 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - TRACK 2. (ctc) (wlb) (Entered: 05/17/1999)
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [2-1] track 2 notice by EEOC (wlb) (Entered: 07/01/1999)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Mid-State Machine 6/2/99 Answer due on 8/2/99 for Mid-State Machine (wlb) (Entered: 07/01/1999)
5 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint by Mid-State Machine (wlb) (Entered: 07/30/1999)
6 NOTICE of filing original case management report by Mid-State Machine (wlb) (Entered: 08/16/1999)
7 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (wlb) (Entered: 08/16/1999)
8 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Joining of parties,amending of pleadings on 2/1/00 ; Deadline for filing of motions 6/1/00 ; Discovery cutoff 5/1/00 ; Pretrial conference for 11:00 8/3/00 ; Pretrial statement due on or before 7/31/00 Scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III (s/rjc) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 08/20/1999)
Jury trial set at 9/5/00 Scheduled for Judge Richard A. Lazzara (jlh) (Entered: 08/20/1999)
9 JOINT MOTION with memorandum in support by EEOC for ninety-day extension of the remaining litigation deadlines in this case (joint) (wlb) (Entered: 02/28/2000)
10 ORDER granting [9-1] joint motion for ninety-day extension of the remaining litigation deadlines in this case, reset motion filing deadline for 9/1/00 , reset discovery due for 8/1/00 , reset pretrial conference for 11/3/00 Scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III , reset jury trial for term commencing 12/4/00 Scheduled for Judge Richard A. Lazzara ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 03/01/2000)
11 NOTICE of Hearing: reset pretrial conference for 11:00 11/9/00 Scheduled for Mag.Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ctc (wlb) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
12 ORDER referring case to mediation. The parties shall immediately select a mediator on or before 8/14/00. Conduct hearing by on or before 10/13/00 Lead counsel, gilbert Carrillo, to coordinate dates. ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 08/02/2000)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?675286501345154-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 3 of 4

08/14/2000 08/15/2000 08/15/2000 08/29/2000 08/31/2000
09/13/2000 10/11/2000
01/10/2001 01/10/2001
02/08/2001 02/09/2001

13 NOTICE OF HEARING and selection of mediator: set mediation conference for 1:00 10/13/00 with Donald J. Spero 12th floor, EEOC (map) Modified on 08/15/2000 (Entered: 08/15/2000)
14 ORDER appointing Donald Jerome Spero as mediator in this action. ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 08/15/2000)
14 NOTICE OF HEARING: set mediation conference for 1:00 10/13/00 ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 08/15/2000)
15 MOTION by EEOC, Mid-State Machine with memorandum in support to extend time for filing dispositive motion , to continue pretrial conference , and to continue trial (wlb) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
16 ORDER granting [15-1] motion to extend time for filing dispositive motion, granting [15-2] motion to continue pretrial conference, granting [15-3] motion to continue trial, reset dispositive motion filing deadline for 11/3/00 , reset pretrial conference for 12/4/00 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III , reset jury trial for 2/5/01 scheduled for Judge Richard A. Lazzara ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
17 NOTICE OF HEARING: set pretrial conference for 11:00 1/18/01 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 09/13/2000)
18 ORDER that the mediation scheduled for 10/13/00, is hereby cancelled. The parties shall mediate this case before Donald J. Spero within 45 days from the date of this order in compliance with the previous orders regarding mediation. ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 10/12/2000)
19 JOINT MOTION with memorandum of law by EEOC, Mid-State Machine to continue pretrial conference for a period of 30 days , to continue trial for a period of 30 days (wlb) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
20 ORDER granting [19-1] joint motion to continue pretrial conference for a period of 30 days, granting [19-2] joint motion to continue trial for a period of 30 days, reset pretrial conference for 10:00 2/15/01 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III , reset jury trial for 3/5/01 scheduled for Judge Richard A. Lazzara ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
21 TRIAL CALENDAR for trial term commencing 3/5/01 scheduled for Judge Richard A. Lazzara Jury trial deadline 3/5/01 ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
22 ORDER that this case is dismissed without prejudice and subject to the right of the parties, within 60 days from the date of this order, to submit a stipulated form of final order or judgment should they so choose or for any party to move to reopen the action, upon good cause shown. After that 60-day period, however, dismissal shall be with prejudice. All pending motions, if any, are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to close

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?675286501345154-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 4 of 4

02/09/2001 04/06/2001
04/06/2001

the file. ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
CASE CLOSED. (wlb) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
23 CONSENT DECREE by EEOC, Mid-State Machine. (wlb) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [23-1] decree consent ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 04/10/2001)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/05/2007 14:04:40

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 8:99-cv-01091-RAL

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

0.16

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?675286501345154-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007