Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-dkv Document 1-1 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
PARAMOUNT STAFFING, INC.,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND ) ) ) )

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights

Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to

provide appropriate relief to Earnestine Tolar and a class of

African Americans. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

alleges that Paramount Staffing Inc., failed to place Ms. Tolar

and a class of African Americans into temporary positions because

of their race, Black and their national origin, American, and

retaliated against Ms. Tolar for opposing employment practices

made illegal by Title VII.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. SsSs451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This is an action

authorized and instituted pursuant to Ss706(f)(1) and (3) of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Ss

2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”).

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-dkv Document 1-1 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 2 of 7
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”) is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by §706(f)(1) and (3) and §707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000-5(f). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Paramount Staffing, Inc., (“Defendant Employer”), was a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Tennessee and the City of Memphis and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g), and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Earnestine Tolar filed a charge with the Commission alleging that Defendant Employer engaged in employment practices which violate Title VII. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. On or around February 2004, and continuing thereafter, Defendant Paramount Staffing, Inc., engaged in unlawful
2

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-dkv Document 1-1 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 3 of 7
employment practices at its facility in Memphis, Tennessee in violation of §§703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)and 2000e-3(a). The unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, discriminating against Earnestine Tolar and a class of African Americans who were seeking temporary work.
8. Defendant contracted with a local warehouse to place temporary workers into unskilled labor positions. Generally, individuals seeking work would line up outside the warehouse a couple of hours before the start of the shift.
9. The warehouse officials would tell Defendant’s onsite managers the number of employees needed in each department, each day. Then, after all of the positions were filled, the remaining individuals in line would be told to go home.
10. Ms. Tolar was hired by Defendant’s predecessor in January 2004. She was placed at the warehouse in the custom packaging department as an assembly line worker. She would perform whatever work was available on a particular day. She could perform the job duties for most of the positions in the plant.
11. After the warehouse contracted with Defendant, warehouse officials told Ms. Tolar that if she was interested in continued employment, she should contact Defendant.
12. Ms. Tolar went to Defendant’s office and completed another application. Defendant placed Ms. Tolar for a while, but later Defendant began to send her home when there were numerous
3

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-dkv Document 1-1 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 4 of 7
assignments available. 13. Although Defendant sent Ms. Tolar home, Defendant
continued to place Hispanic workers. 14. On February 29, 2004, and March 16, 2004, Ms. Tolar
complained to Defendant’s onsite manager that its practices of sending African Americans home while assigning Hispanics to work, was discriminatory.
15. After Ms. Tolar complained the second time, she was escorted off the property and terminated from her employment.
16. Furthermore, when Defendant’s predecessor had the contract, the work force was predominantly African American. When Defendant took over the contract in February 2004, its management it essentially replaced the African Americans with Hispanics.
17. The dramatic reduction in the placement of African American workers was accomplished by several discriminatory practices.
18. Hispanics were selected before African Americans, without regard to each individual’s prior experience, place in line, or availability.
19. There were times when Defendant’s on-site managers would announce in English that there were no jobs available and the African Americans would leave. After the African Americans left, the Hispanics were allowed to come into the warehouse and work.
20. The effect of the practices complained of above has 4

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-dkv Document 1-1 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 5 of 7

been to deprive Ms. Tolar and a class of African American

individuals placement into temporary positions, because of their

race, African American, and national origin, American, and to

retaliate against Ms. Tolar for

opposing the alleged

discrimination.

21. The unlawful employment practices complained of above

were and are intentional.

22. Defendant Employer at all relevant times acted with

malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights

of African American and American workers.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully prays that this

Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant

Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in

active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any

employment practice which discriminates because of race, African

Americans and national origin, American.

B.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant

Employer and its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons

in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any

employment practices that retaliate against persons who oppose

employment practices made illegal by Title VII.

C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out

policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment

opportunities for African Americans and Americans which eradicate

5

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-dkv Document 1-1 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 6 of 7
the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Earnestine Tolar and a class of African Americans and Americans by providing appropriate back pay 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 but not limited to rightful place hiring.
E. Order Defendant Employer, to make whole Earnestine Tolar and a class of African Americans and Americans by providing compensation for pecuniary losses, including but not limited to costs to be incurred for the costs of seeking new employment, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Earnestine Tolar and a class of African Americans and Americans by providing compensation for nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish in amounts to be proven at trial.
G. Order Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct, in an amount to be determined at trial.
H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
I. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
6

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-dkv Document 1-1 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 7 of 7
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully Submitted RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
S/ Faye A. Williams (by permission DS) FAYE A.WILLIAMS Regional Attorney Tennessee Bar No. 011730
s/ Terry Beck (by permission DS) TERRY BECK Supervisory Trial Attorney Tennessee Bar No. 9346
s/ Deidre Smith DEIDRE SMITH Senior Trial Attorney Tennessee Bar No. 018499 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1407 Union Avenue, Suite 621 Memphis, Tennessee 38104 Telephone: (901) 544-0140
7

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 29 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 3 PageID 241

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

PARAMOUNT STAFFING, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action No 2:06-cv-02624
Judge McCalla Magistrate Judge Cohn
JURY DEMAND

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel (D.E. # 22) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel (D.E. # 26). Defendant requests that the Court order Plaintiff to compel certain non-party putative class members to appear for noticed depositions. Plaintiff responds that it has made earnest attempts to encourage potential class members to appear voluntarily but that these efforts have been largely unsuccessful. Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s remedy to secure attendance is to issue a subpoena pursuant to Rule 30(a) and Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
I. Background This case arises from Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) allegations that Defendant

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 29 Filed 06/25/08 Page 2 of 3 PageID 242
Paramount Staffing, Inc. (“Paramount”), a temporary staffing agency, engaged in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Paramount favored individuals with Hispanic origin over African Americans when referring temporary employees for positions at a local warehouse. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief on behalf of the charging party, Earnestine Tolar, and a class of African Americans who unsuccessfully sought temporary employment through Paramount.
During the discovery phase of this case, Defendant has sought to depose fifteen non-party putative class members, as named in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures and responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Defendant issued notices of depositions to these individuals, but only one person attended the noticed deposition. Accordingly, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel requesting the Court to order Plaintiff to make the noticed non-party putative class members appear for deposition.
II. Analysis Under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may depose any person and may compel attendance by subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 29 Filed 06/25/08 Page 3 of 3 PageID 243
45. If the person sought to be deposed is a non-party, a notice of deposition is insufficient to compel attendance; instead, the deponent must be subpoenaed pursuant to Rule 45. See 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d §§ 2106-07 (2d ed. 1994); see, e.g. Williams v. Gilless, Nos. 003049/ 02-2982, 2004 WL 792788 at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 15, 2004).
In the present case, the Court finds that the proper remedy for Defendant to require the attendance of non-party deponents is by issuance of a subpoena under Rule 45. If the non-party deponents fail to attend under subpoena, they may be held in contempt of court and may be subject to sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(1). However, there is no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to grant a motion to compel based upon failure of a non-party to voluntarily attend a noticed deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel is DENIED.
III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion to Compel (D.E. #22) is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2008.
s/ Gerald B. Cohn GERALD B. COHN U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 30 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID 244

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

______________________________________________________________________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPURTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-02624

v.

)

)

Judge McCalla

PARAMOUNT STAFFING, INC.,

)

Magistrate Judge Cohn

)

Defendant.

)

JURY DEMAND

)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (D.E. #18) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (D.E. #25). Defendant seeks to avoid responding to certain Requests for Production that it asserts fall outside the scope of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order on the basis that such information is required to perform the statistical analyses necessary to prove its cause of action. For good cause shown, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED on the terms set forth herein.
The scope of discovery in any action, while intended to be broad, should nevertheless be tailored to include claims and defenses asserted by a party in its pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b)(1) states that “parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Furthermore, the Federal Rules provide the Court authority to exercise its discretion in limiting the scope of discovery to certain matters and to prescribe a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(C)-(D). In the present action, the Court finds it in the best interest of the parties to limit the scope of Plaintiff’s discovery request pursuant to the discretionary authority granted in Rule 26(c)(1)(C)-(D).
1

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 30 Filed 07/14/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID 245 As to Requests Nos. 1-4 in Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents, the
Court notes that Plaintiff has requested documents relative to all applications received by Defendant from applicants seeking temporary employment “in the Memphis area.” The Court concludes these Requests to be excessively broad and to fall outside the scope of the Complaint, as the issues at bar regard the referrals and hiring practices at a single warehouse facility. Thus, the Court finds that it is appropriate only to require Defendant to provide the information requested for the employees placed at Technicolor’s Memphis Oaks facility from January 1, 2004 through August 6, 2006. Defendant is not required to provide data for all persons who applied for employment throughout Memphis, as that is beyond the scope of the claims asserted in this matter.
As to Requests Nos. 1-2 in Plaintiff’s Third Request for Production, the Court concludes that a narrower request to include statistical data related specifically to those applicants referred to Technicolor’s Memphis Oaks facility would be sufficient. This information will enable the Plaintiff to conduct an accurate statistical analysis for the purpose of which its Complaint was filed without causing undue burden or expense to the Defendant. Thus, Defendant shall be required to produce the information sought in Requests No. 1-2 for those applicants referred to the Technicolor Memphis Oaks facility.
Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to submit a proposed Protective Order in accordance with the Court’s order on or before July 18, 2008. Defendant is further ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests in accordance with the discovery deadlines established by the Court.
It is SO ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2008. s/ Gerald B. Cohn GERALD B. COHN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 34 Filed 09/03/08 Page 1 of 4 PageID 332

_____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

Civil Action No 2:06-2624 JPM-gbc

v.

)

)

Judge McCalla

PARAMOUNT STAFFING, INC.,

)

Magistrate Judge Cohn

)

Defendant.

)

JURY DEMAND

)

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________________
It appearing to the Court, by the signatures of counsel set forth below, that the parties agree to entry of the following Protective Order to prohibit the disclosure of non-public, confidential, personnel, proprietary and/or sensitive information, documents and testimony that may be produced in discovery or otherwise provided or made available to the parties in this matter, pursuant to the Court’s authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c),
It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows: I. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
A. Definition of Confidential Information 1. “Confidential Information,” as used in this Agreement and Order, means any and all social security numbers contained in documents produced in this litigation, whether produced electronically or in hard copy.

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 34 Filed 09/03/08 Page 2 of 4 PageID 333
2. For purposes of this Agreement and Order, the term “document” means all written, recorded or graphic material, whether produced or created by a party or another person (including but not limited to extracts and summarizes prepared from or regarding Confidential Information), whether produced pursuant to Rule 34, subpoena, agreement or provided in the form of responses to Interrogatories or Requests for Admissions or deposition testimony.
3. The parties will comply with the Local Rules of Court and redact all Confidential Information from any affidavits, briefs, memoranda, exhibits, or other papers filed with the Court. B. Qualified Persons with Access to Confidential Information
Confidential Information shall be used only for the litigation, preparation for trial, trial and/or settlement of this action and shall not be disclosed or transmitted, verbatim or in substance, to anyone except the following “qualified persons”:
1. The attorneys of record in this action and their associated attorneys, legal assistants, and staff members working on the action to the extent reasonably necessary to render professional services in the action;
2. The named parties to this litigation with a need-to-know; 3. Outside consultants and/or experts retained for the purpose of assisting counsel in the litigation; 4. Witnesses interviewed by a party’s representatives or counsel, or persons deposed in this lawsuit, with a need-to-know Confidential Information; 5. Stenographic reporters engaged for depositions or other proceedings necessary to the conduct of the action.
2

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 34 Filed 09/03/08 Page 3 of 4 PageID 334
C. Restrictions on the Use and Disclosure of Confidential Information 1. Persons obtaining access to items designated as “Confidential” shall use the
information solely for litigation, preparation for trial, trial, and/or settlement of this action. 2. Any document containing any Confidential Information shall have said
information redacted out before it is filed in compliance with the Local Rules of Court. 3. Neither the parties nor their counsel of record shall discuss or disclose the
contents of any Confidential Information with any other person, except between themselves for purposes of this action and as otherwise permitted in this Order.
4. The provisions of this Order shall survive and remain in full force and effect after the entry of final judgment, including any appellate proceedings in this case, whether by settlement or adjudication.
It is so ordered this 3rd day of September, 2008. s/JON PHIPPS McCALLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 34 Filed 09/03/08 Page 4 of 4 PageID 335
AGREED:
/s/ Steven Dills (with permission Brenda Nelson) DEIDRE SMITH (TN Bar # 018499) STEVEN DILLS (TN Bar # 011970) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue, Suite 621 Memphis, Tennessee 38104 Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
/s/ Paul E. Prather_____________________ PAUL E. PRATHER (TN Bar # 10089) GEORGE W. LOVELAND, II (TN Bar # 6446) BRENDA R. NELSON (TN Bar # 024635) Kiesewetter Wise Kaplan Prather, PLC 3725 Champion Hills Drive, Suite 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 (901) 795-6695 Attorneys for Defendant
4

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 1 of 10 PageID 431

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION
________________________________________________________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

No. 06-2624-JPM-gbc

)

PARAMOUNT STAFFING, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON EEOC’S FAILURE TO CONCILIATE IN GOOD FAITH
________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is Defendant Paramount Staffing, Inc.’s

Motion for Summary Judgment Based Upon EEOC’s Failure to

Conciliate in Good Faith, filed August 22, 2008 (Doc. 31).

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission responded in

opposition on September 22, 2008 (Doc. 38). Defendant then filed

a reply on November 26, 2008 (Doc. 45). For the following

reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s claim on

behalf of Ernestine Tolar alleging race discrimination in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e, et seq. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

contracted with a local Technicolor warehouse to place temporary

1

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 2 of 10 PageID 432
workers in unskilled labor positions. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff states that individuals seeking employment would line up outside the warehouse for multiple hours in advance of the start of a shift and that those individuals remaining after all positions had been filled would be told to go home. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff asserts that although Tolar received employment through Defendant’s predecessor in 2004, Defendant failed to place her once Technicolor contracted with Defendant. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant did not place Tolar despite the existence of available assignments and that Defendant continually selected Hispanic workers over African American workers, including Tolar, without regard to a worker’s prior experience, place in line, or availability. (Id. ¶¶ 12-14, 18.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant’s managers at times would announce in English to the workers in line that there were no jobs available, would wait for African American workers to leave, and then would employ Hispanic workers who remained in line. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, compensation for pecuniary loss on behalf of Tolar and all similarly situated African American workers, and punitive damages, among other relief. (Id. ¶ A-I.)
2

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 3 of 10 PageID 433
Tolar filed a charge of discrimination with Plaintiff on March 22, 2004. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 2.)1 Following a twoyear investigation, Plaintiff issued a Letter of Determination on May 24, 2006 stating that Tolar and a class of black employees were denied jobs because of their race. (Id. at 2.) In the same letter, Plaintiff requested that Defendant “join with it in a collective effort toward a just resolution of this matter” and submitted a proposed Conciliation Agreement. (Id. at 3.) The agreement proposed a total of $2,903,800 for back pay and compensatory damages for two hundred class members allegedly denied job assignments in a two-year period. (Id.) Following receipt of the letter and proposal, the parties met to discuss the proposal. (Id.)
On July 10, 2006, Defendant made a counter-offer of $111,581.22 for the two hundred class members. (Bland Decl. Ex. C.) The parties further exchanged counter-offers until a representative of Plaintiff, by letter dated August 4, 2006, stated that “unless [Defendant] is willing to meet [Plaintiff’s] monetary demand by Thursday, August 11, 2006, I will recommend to the District Director that we fail conciliation.” (Bland Decl. Ex. F.) Following a counter-offer by Defendant, Plaintiff stated
1 Defendant did not include a separate Statement of Undisputed Facts with its motion, as required by Local Rule 7.2(d)(2). Nonetheless, Plaintiff states in its response that it only disputes one allegation made in Defendant’s factual summary. (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 4.) That dispute is noted by the Court below.
3

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 4 of 10 PageID 434
that Defendant had until August 23, 2006 to accept its counteroffer or Plaintiff would recommend a failure of conciliation. (Bland Decl. Ex. H.) On the same day, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter stating that it lacked sufficient information to assess the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s offers. (Bland Decl. Ex. I.) Plaintiff did not respond to this letter, and on August 24, 2006 it issued a Notice of Conciliation Failure. (Bland Decl. Ex. J.) Plaintiff then filed the instant lawsuit on September 22, 2006.
The parties disagree as to what information was provided to Defendant regarding the class members. Defendant states that despite receiving multiple requests for the identities and any other information about the class members, Plaintiff failed to provide any identifying information. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 4.) Defendant states that it informally requested the identities of the two hundred class members after Plaintiff filed the lawsuit but that Plaintiff denied its request. (Id. at 6.) Defendant states that it also sought the identities through interrogatories and other discovery requests but that Plaintiff has only been able to identify approximately forty class members and produce two individuals for depositions. (Id.)
By contrast, Plaintiff asserts that the documents sent to Defendant — the determination letter and subsequent communications conducted during the conciliation process —
4

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 5 of 10 PageID 435
sufficiently provided a general description of class members and full details about how Plaintiff calculated its damages proposals. (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 45.) According the Plaintiff, the parties’ conciliation efforts failed not because Defendant lacked identifying information about the class members but rather because the parties could not agree how to calculate damages. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff further states that contrary to Defendant’s assertions, it provided the names of 281 class members in its Rule 26 disclosures at the beginning of the discovery process. (Id.)
Defendant now moves for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff lacked a sufficient basis for making demands for two hundred class members prior to filing the lawsuit and thus failed to conciliate in good faith. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). So long as the movant has met its initial burden of “demonstrat[ing] the absence
5

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 6 of 10 PageID 436
of a genuine issue of material fact,” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, and the nonmoving party is unable to make such a showing, summary judgment is appropriate. Emmons v. McLaughlin, 874 F.2d 351, 353 (6th Cir. 1989). In considering a motion for summary judgment, however, “the evidence as well as all inferences drawn therefrom must be read in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc.,799 F.2d 1128, 1133 (6th Cir. 1986), reh’g denied; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
When confronted with a properly-supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see also Abeita v. TransAm. Mailings, Inc., 159 F.3d 246, 250 (6th Cir. 1998), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied. A genuine issue of material fact exists for trial “if the evidence [presented by the nonmoving party] is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In essence, the inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 251-52.
6

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 7 of 10 PageID 437
III. Analysis Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to conciliate in
good faith by not providing Defendant with the identities of the proposed class members and by allegedly misrepresenting the number of class members. The Court disagrees.
Once the EEOC determines that “there is reasonable cause to believe that [a charge filed with it] is true, the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The EEOC “must make a good faith effort to conciliate the claim” prior to filing suit, but “[t]he form and substance of those conciliations is [sic] within the discretion of the EEOC as the agency created to administer and enforce our employment discrimination laws and is beyond judicial review.” EEOC v. Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1102 (6th Cir. 1984). Thus, a district court “should only determine whether the EEOC made an attempt at conciliation.” Id.; see also EEOC v. Mike Fink Corp., 1998 WL 34078445 at *3 n.4 (M.D. Tenn. July 17, 1998) (“[T]he Keco Indus. court clearly admonished district courts to avoid qualitative evaluation of the EEOC’s conciliation efforts.”)
Here, the parties’ efforts at conciliation were sufficient. Plaintiff proposed an agreement premised on class-based claims,
7

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 8 of 10 PageID 438
and the parties underwent multiple rounds of renegotiating. Once
Defendant rejected Plaintiff’s proposal, Plaintiff had no further
duty to pursue conciliation and was free to file suit. See Keco,
748 F.2d at 1101-02; see also Mike Fink, 1998 WL 34078445 at *3
(citing Keco).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff was obligated to disclose
the identities of all two hundred class members, but this argument runs contrary to case law.2 “As long as the outline of
the class is identified, each [person] within the ‘class’ need
not be specifically identified in the conciliation process.”
EEOC v. Cone Solvents, Inc., 2006 WL 1083406 at * 9 (M.D. Tenn.
April 21, 2006) (finding that the EEOC’s reference to a “class of
females” that had allegedly been subject to harassment was
sufficiently specific). Here, Plaintiff’s communications during
its conciliation efforts provided a sufficient outline of the
class. Plaintiff stated that there were two hundred class
members consisting of African American low-skilled temporary
workers who sought work at the Technicolor facility. (See, e.g.,
2 Defendant relies heavily on EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2003), and EEOC v. First Midwest Bank, N.A., 14 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Ill. 1998), but these cases, in addition to being non-binding on this Court, are distinguishable from the instant dispute. In Asplundh, the court found that the EEOC failed to specify the legal theory that formed the basis of its claim. 340 F.3d at 1260. In First Midwest Bank, the court noted that the EEOC had mislead the defendant into believing negotiations were unnecessary for a month-long period, quadrupled the amount of damages it was seeking with no explanation, and never indicated whether the damages sought were for the class as a whole or for an individual plaintiff. 14 F. Supp. 2d at 1032. None of these circumstances were present in this case.
8

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 9 of 10 PageID 439
Bland Decl. Ex. A, H.) Plaintiff had no duty to disclose more detailed identifying information.
The Court further declines to grant summary judgment based on Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff misrepresented the size of the class during the conciliation process. Defendant’s argument in this regard relies on its assertion that Plaintiff has only been able to identify forty class members since filing the lawsuit. Plaintiff provides evidence, however, that shortly after filing suit it disclosed the names of 281 class members identified during its investigation of Defendant’s employment practices. (See Smith Aff. Ex. 1 (listing 281 potential class members).) In light of this evidence, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff attempted to strong-arm Defendant into settling by making misrepresentations during the negotiating process.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff falsely stated that it had definitively identified two hundred class members and that such a claim is now disproved because the 281 class members Plaintiff listed were only potential class members.3 The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff frequently used the word “approximately” when referring to the two hundred class members in its settlement offers, (Bland Decl. Ex. B, Ex. D.), and made no definitive declaration regarding class size. Moreover, Defendant points to
3 Defendant states that most of the potential class members never sought employment with Defendant after it became the labor provider for Technicolor. (Def.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. 3 n.1.)
9

Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 50 Filed 03/09/09 Page 10 of 10 PageID 440
no authority stipulating that Plaintiff’s estimated class size during conciliation cannot change once litigation commences. Good faith efforts at conciliation require Plaintiff to estimate reasonably a class size based on the information it possesses when settlement negotiations occur but do not require Plaintiff to adhere rigidly to that figure once additional information is obtained during litigation. Accordingly, the Court does not find that Plaintiff failed to conciliate in good faith in this manner. IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Paramount Staffing Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2009. s/ JON PHIPPS McCALLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
v.
PARAMOUNT STAFFING, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No 2:06-cv-02624

)

)

Judge McCalla

)

Magistrate Judge Claxton

)

)

JURY DEMAND

)

______________________________________________________________________

CONSENT DECREE ______________________________________________________________________

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission” or “EEOC”)

brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title

VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, alleging that Defendant Paramount

Staffing Inc., (“Defendant”) failed to place Earnestine Toler and a class of African

Americans into temporary positions because of their race, Black and their national

origin, American, and retaliated against Ms. Toler for opposing employment practices

made illegal by Title VII.

Defendant denies the Commission's allegations or that it otherwise violated Title

VII and the agreement to enter into this Consent Decree does not represent an

admission of liability.

In the event this proposed Consent Decree is not approved or does not become

final then it shall not be admissible.

The parties stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court. It is hereby Ordered that: 1. This Consent Decree constitutes the complete and exclusive Decree between the parties with respect to the matters referred to herein. No waiver, modification, or amendment of any provision of this Consent Decree shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by both parties. No representations or inducements to compromise this action have been made, other than those recited or referenced in this Consent Decree. 2. This Consent Decree resolves EEOC Charge No. 250-2004-02108, filed by Earnestine Toler, and this civil action that arose from her charge. 3. The term of this Decree shall be two (2) years from the date of entry of the Consent Decree. The terms of this Decree shall apply only to the operations of the Defendant in Memphis, Tennessee. 4. The eligible class members are those applicants who applied for positions at the Memphis Oaks facility and who were sent to the Technicolor Memphis Oaks site during the relevant time period, June 2004 to August 2006, and whom the Commission determines to be eligible to receive monetary relief in this lawsuit. 5. Defendant, its officers, agents, management, (including supervisory employees), successors and assigns, are enjoined from failing to hire African American applicants on the basis of race or national origin, American, in any aspect of employment. 6. Defendant, its officers, agents, management, (including supervisory

employees), successors and assigns, are enjoined from discriminating against African American employees on the basis of race or national origin, American, in any aspect of placement with client companies.
7. Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, management, (including supervisory employees) and all persons acting in concert with Paramount Staffing are enjoined from retaliating against any employee or applicant for employment for participating in any proceeding under Title VII or for opposing discriminatory employment practices made unlawful under Title VII.
8. Within sixty (60) days of entry of this Decree, Defendant shall create a written hiring and placement policy which shall prohibit race discrimination and retaliation. The Commission will have an opportunity to review the policy. This policy shall outline the procedures by which Defendant shall hire or place employees for employment. The procedures shall also state that Defendant is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer and that discrimination in the hiring and placement of applicants is expressly prohibited and will not be tolerated.
9. Defendant will publish the written hiring and placement policies as discussed in paragraph 8 in English and Spanish.
10. Defendant shall distribute to each employee the hiring and placement policy and each employee shall be given copies of the policy. In addition, Defendant shall provide each employee a copy of its non-discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity Policy.
11. Defendant shall publish its Equal Employment Opportunity policy in English and Spanish.

12. Defendant shall post its written hiring and placement policy and Equal Employment Opportunity Policy at all of its Memphis facilities in both English and Spanish.
13. The hiring and placement policy will include a procedure for employees to report race and/or national origin discrimination in the placement of temporary assignments, including a specific telephone number to the corporate human resources department. The Defendant will maintain written information related to all applicants during the term of the Consent Decree, including the dates of application and referrals during the term of the Consent Decree. The Commission may request that information for examination, including the data in electronic format, upon reasonable notice during the term of the Consent Decree.
14. Within thirty (30) days of this Decree, Defendant shall retain a qualified consultant having at least ten years specialized knowledge of employment discrimination law or an attorney who specializes in employment law to conduct race and national origin discrimination awareness training to all recruiters, onsite personnel, and supervisory and management personnel employed by Paramount Staffing. This training shall be mandatory for all employees who make temporary placement decisions including, but not limited to, branch managers, assistant managers, supervisors, recruiters, and onsite personnel and shall be conducted within ninety (90) days of entry of this Decree.
15. The training topics presented by the consultant or attorney shall include, at a minimum, (a) Title VII’s prohibition against race, national origin, and retaliation discrimination with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment; (b)

Paramount Staffing's policies and procedures for the prevention of race discrimination in general and as they relate to its hiring and temporary placement policies specifically; (c) Paramount Staffing procedures for reporting, investigating and remedying race discrimination or retaliation complaints by temporary personnel, and (d) the Commission’s New Compliance Manual, Section 15 on Race and Color Discrimination.
16. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the date of entry of this Decree by the Court, the Defendant will provide the Commission with copies of the training materials and related documentation evidencing the accomplishment of training compliance for all recruiters, onsite personnel, and supervisory and management personnel. The aforementioned documentation shall include the names and position of the individuals attending the training, the time each individual spent at the training, and a sign in sheet.
17. All reporting to the Commission required by this section shall be made to Deidre Smith, Supervisory Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1407 Union Avenue, Suite 901, Memphis, Tennessee 38104.
18. Prior to the initiation of training, the Regional Vice President (Memphis, TN), shall provide Exhibit A to each management employee advising that Paramount Staffing has a strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of race and national origin discrimination and that race or national origin discrimination by any person, including any management official, supervisor, recruiter, on-site personnel, or customer, is expressly prohibited, and will not be tolerated.
19. Defendant shall maintain in its Human Resources Department a record of each person trained pursuant to paragraph 14 above.

20. Defendant shall deposit funds in an interest bearing account and pay a total of Five Hundred Eighty Five Thousand Dollars ($585,000.00) in full settlement of the claims of the EEOC on behalf of Earnestine Toler and all eligible class members in this lawsuit.
21. Within thirty (30) business days from the effective date of this Decree, Defendant shall fund/create the Class Fund to compensate class members for their claims of Title VII violations arising out of Defendant’s alleged failure to place African Americans into temporary positions because of their race and national origin, American.
22. Within thirty (30) business days from the effective date of this Decree, Defendant shall provide the Commission with written verification of the funding/creation of this account.
23. The Class Fund shall be used solely to make payments to class members who timely submit claims and who the Commission determines pursuant to Paragraph 28 to be eligible to receive monetary relief in this lawsuit.
24. Within sixty (60) business days following the entry of this Decree, the Commission shall mail a package containing the following materials (the "Consent Package") to each Potential Class Member, based on race, African American, and National Origin, American, except Earnestine Toler:
a. A Claim Form (Exhibit B); b. A Notice of the Consent Decree (Exhibit C); and c. A Release of Claims (Exhibit D). 25. Each Potential Class Member who wishes to claim a share of the Class Fund or otherwise participate in the benefits of this Decree shall return an executed

Claim Form (Exhibit B) and Release of Claims (Exhibit D) to the Commission so that it is received by the Commission not later than sixty (60) days after the package is mailed. The Commission shall process these documents and shall prepare a list of Eligible Claimants whose executed claim forms and executed releases of claims were received by the Commission in a timely manner.
26. No claimant shall receive payment pursuant to this Decree until a signed release (Exhibit D) has been received by the Defendant.
27. Within thirty (30) days of receiving and considering all claims from Potential Class Members, the Commission shall forward to Defendant the names, social security numbers, mailing addresses, and monetary allocation of the Eligible Class Members (“Final Distribution List”). The Commission will also provide fully executed releases to Paramount Staffing.
28. The Commission will have sole discretion to determine (1) the Eligible Class Members entitled to relief and (2) the allocation of monetary amount(s) from the Class Fund to each such Class Member. The Commission will base its determination of entitlement to relief and the allocation of damages on employment history with Paramount, the responses provided on the claim form, and participation in the lawsuit. Ms. Toler shall receive a lump sum payment of $65,000.00.
29. Within twenty (20) business days after receipt of the Final Distribution List, Defendant shall forward, via certified mail, an individual check to each of the particular Eligible Class Members. All amounts distributed from the Class Fund constitute "compensatory damages," under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Defendant shall prepare and distribute an IRS Form 1099 for the compensatory

monetary payments, and shall make appropriate reports to the Internal Revenue Service.
30. Within fifteen (15) business days of the mailing of each settlement check, Defendant shall submit a copy of each check and related correspondence to Deidre Smith, Supervisory Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1407 Union, Suite 901, Memphis, Tennessee 38104.
31. Within 90 days after the mailing of each settlement check (or at such later time as may be agreed by the parties), the Defendant will notify the Commission of return checks or checks not cashed. The Commission will direct the redistribution of the amount of any remaining funds.
32. If the Defendant engages in any media advertising, related to job vacancies, in the Memphis market during the terms of this Agreement, Defendant agrees that not less than 30% of its advertising expenses will be for advertisements through one or more of the following media outlets: Tri State Defender Newspaper and/or local radio stations where the majority of the listeners are African American, including 1070 WDIA, 1340 WLOK, and 103.5 WRBO.
33. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Paramount Staffing shall post and keep posted for one year and six months in conspicuous places upon their premises where notices to employees are customarily posted, the notice posting regarding this settlement. (See Exhibit E).
34. Defendant confirms that it has posted and shall cause to remain displayed the poster required by Section 711 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-10(a).

35. Defendant shall also post and keep posted in a location where notices to employees are customarily posted, a copy of its policy and procedures for reporting and preventing discrimination in the workplace.
36. Defendant shall maintain records of any complaints made of race, retaliation, or national origin discrimination in the placement of temporary employees involving any branch office in Memphis, Tennessee. These records shall include the names, addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers of employees or applicants making the complaints. These records shall also contain the dates of the reports or complaints, what was alleged, the names of any witnesses, the names and positions of any alleged discriminating employee or management official, and what actions Defendant took to resolve the complaints.
37. Defendant shall submit three (3) reports to the Commission. Defendant shall submit the first within six (6) months of the entry of this Decree. The second report shall be due within fourteen (14) months of entry of the Decree and the third report will be due sixty (60) days before the end of the term of the Decree. The reports will contain a summary of the information recorded by Defendant pursuant to paragraph 36 above. Defendant shall mail these reports to Deidre Smith, Supervisory Trial Attorney, at the Memphis District Office address, 1407 Union, Suite 901, Memphis, Tennessee 38104, with a statement that identifies such reports as being submitted consistent with this Decree.
38. Defendant agrees to give a neutral reference to any potential employer of Earnestine Toler who may request a job reference. This means a reference shall be told dates of employment and positions held. Any reference given on behalf of Ms.

Toler will include the statement that: “Our policy does not permit us to give out any other information concerning former employees.” All requests for references will be directed to the Regional Vice President of Paramount Staffing or his designee. Any such neutral reference may also be in writing in the form of Exhibit F. No mention of Ms. Toler’s charge of discrimination or this lawsuit will be made as part of the neutral reference.
39. Each party shall bear that party’s own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses.
40. This Decree shall remain in effect two (2) years from the date of entry. During the period that this Decree shall remain in effect, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to assure compliance with the Decree. The parties expressly agree that the Commission may bring a motion before the Court to enforce the Decree if it has reason to believe that Defendant has failed to comply with any provisions of this Decree. Prior to initiating such action, the Commission will send written notice to Defendant by written mail of any alleged breach and give Defendant sixty (60) days to cure the breach. The parties agree to cooperate with each other and use their best efforts to resolve any dispute referenced in the notice. After sixty (60) days, the Commission may petition this Court for resolution of the dispute.
41. Defendant will provide prior written notice to any potential purchaser of Defendant’s business, or a purchaser of all or a portion of Defendant’s assets, and to any other potential successor, of the Commission’s lawsuit, the allegations raised in the Commission’s Complaint, and the existence and contents of the settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19th DAY OF August 2010

/s/ JON PHIPPS McCALLA CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPROVED FOR ENTRY:

FOR PLAINTIFF:

FOR DEFENDANT:

P. DAVID LOPEZ General Counsel

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

s/ Paul E. Prather w/permission DS PAUL E. PRATHER TN Bar No. 10089

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
s/ Faye A. Williams w/permission DS FAYE A. WILLIAMS Regional Attorney TN Bar No. 011730

s/ Brenda Nelson w/permission DS_ _ BRENDA NELSON TN Bar No. 024635 Kiesewetter Wise Kaplan Prather, PLC 3725 Champion Hills Drive, Suite 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 (901) 795-6695

s/ Deidre Smith DEIDRE SMITH Supervisory Trial Attorney TN Bar No. 018499

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1407 Union Avenue, Suite 901 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0140

s/ Sally Ramsey w/permission DS _ SALLY RAMSEY Senior Trial Attorney TN Bar No. 018859

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 50 Vantage Way, Suite 202 Nashville, TN 38228 (615) 736-2105

EXHIBIT A
Date
To: All Management Employees
From: Tim Massey Regional Vice President
Subj: EEOC v. Paramount Staffing
Paramount Staffing was recently involved in litigation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which we have vigorously defended. The claims alleged that Paramount failed to place African-American employees into temporary positions because of their race and national origin and that Paramount retaliated against one individual who complained about alleged discriminatory practices.
Paramount defended the claims against its managers and the company and has denied any liability. To avoid the cost and disruption of further litigation, Paramount has agreed to resolve this matter. As part of the resolution of this matter, Paramount will modify its policies and procedures regarding its hiring and placement of employees. In addition, we agreed to provide training to management employees to ensure that we have a work environment that is free of discrimination.
Paramount Staffing does not tolerate or condone race and retaliation discrimination in any form. Further, Paramount will not retaliate against any employee who participated in the EEOC’s investigation or who otherwise may complain about any discrimination in the workplace.
_______________________________ Tim Massey Regional Vice President

EXHIBIT B
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Paramount Class Settlement 1407 Union Ave, Suite 900 Memphis, TN 38104 Phone # (901) 544-0107 Fax # (901)544-0111
CLAIM FORM
1. Name: 2. Social Security Number:
3. Address:
4. Phone Numbers: Home ____________________ Work ______________________ Cell _____________________ Other
5. What is the best way to contact you?
6. Emergency contact - Who can we call if we are unable to reach you? Name: Phone: Relationship to you:
7. What is the best time of day to contact you?

8. What is your race or national origin?

9. Did you apply for temporary employment anytime between February 2004 and June 2006 with Paramount Staffing, Inc. for warehousing jobs in Memphis, TN?

CIRCLE ONE: YES /

NO

Date(s) You Applied:________________________________________________

10. If your answer to Question 1 above is “Yes”, did you get to work every time you were sent out to the Memphis Oaks Technicolor facility?

CIRCLE ONE: YES /

NO

11. If the answer to Question 2 above is “No”, do you believe that your race was a factor in the Paramount's decision not to select you to work at the Memphis Oaks Technicolor facility?

CIRCLE ONE: YES /

NO

DON'T KNOW

12. If the answer to Question 3 above is “Yes”, describe why you felt race was a factor in Paramount’s decision not to select you to work at the Memphis Oaks Technicolor facility.

13. Describe what happened to you that you believe was discrimination on the basis of race and how many times it happened to you when you sought temporary work with Paramount Staffing Inc. at the Memphis Oaks Technicolor facility.

14. Describe any other examples of why you felt race was a factor in work decisions made by Paramount at the Memphis Oaks Technicolor facility.
YOU MUST READ CAREFULLY AND SIGN THE VERIFICATION CLAUSE BELOW TO BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE MONEY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT.
VERIFICATION CLAUSE I do hereby swear, under penalty of perjury, that all of the information I have provided on this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
__________________________ Signature
__________________________ Name (Please Print)
Date: ____

EXHIBIT C
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE
The EEOC brought suit against Paramount Staffing, Inc., in Federal Court. One of the claims is that African Americans were discriminated against because of their race and national origin, American. The Parties have now settled the case. Chief Judge Jon P. McCalla approved a Consent Decree on __________________which resolves all issues raised in the case EEOC filed against Paramount Staffing, Inc. in Case No. 2:06cv-02624.
IMPORTANT
If you are an African American and you applied for employment as a warehouse worker with Paramount Staffing, Inc. between June 2004 to August 2006, and you believe you were denied placement into a job at the Memphis Oaks Technicolor facility, you must complete the enclosed Claim Form, to be eligible to receive money under the terms of the Settlement. Remember that the information you provide on the claim form must be truthful and accurate to the best of your knowledge.

EXHIBIT D

RELEASE

In consideration of the $_____ payment to me by Paramount Staffing, I (name),

hereby fully and forever release and discharge Paramount Staffing, Inc., its successors,

and assigns, including its present officers, employees and agents, from any claim or

obligation based on alleged race or national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was or could have been raised in EEOC v.

Paramount Staffing , Inc., Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-02624 (W.D.Tenn.).

I have read this Release and I execute it voluntarily, without coercion or threat of

reprisal.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Release is signed and executed by me on the

day of

, 2010.

_________________________________________________

EXHIBIT D-1

RELEASE

In consideration of the $65,000.00 payment to me by Paramount Staffing, I,

Earnestine Toler, hereby fully and forever release and discharge Paramount Staffing,

Inc., its successors, and assigns, including its present officers, employees and agents,

from any claim or obligation based on alleged race discrimination, national origin

discrimination, or retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which

was or could have been raised in EEOC v. Paramount Staffing , Inc., Civil Action No.

2:06-cv-02624 (W.D. Tenn.).

I have read this Release and I execute it voluntarily, without coercion or threat of

reprisal.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Release is signed and executed by me on the

day of

, 2010.

_____________________________________

Exhibit E
NOTICE
1. This Notice to all employees of Paramount Staffing, Inc. (“Paramount ”) is being posted as part of an agreement between Paramount and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in settlement of a complaint of race, national origin and retaliation discrimination.
2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, is a federal law that provides that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or temporarily place any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual because of such individual’s race or national origin, or to retaliate because the individual opposed discrimination.
3. Paramount supports and will comply with Title VII in all respects and will not take any action against employees because they have opposed employment practices made illegal by Title VII or exercised their rights under the law by filing charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or because they testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII.
4. If you believe that you have been discriminated against because of your race, you may contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). You may seek assistance from:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) 1407 Union Suite 901 Memphis, Tennessee 38104 901-544-0116 1-800-669-4000
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This notice will remain posted for one year and six months from the date signed.

______________________________ Paramount Staffing, Inc.

_________________ Date

To Whom It May Concern:

EXHIBIT F
REFERENCE LETTER

This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the employment of Ms. Earnestine Toler. Ms. Toler worked at Paramount Staffing, Inc. as an assembler from February 25, 2004 through March 2004. Our policy does not permit us to give out any other information concerning former employees.

Very truly yours,

Tim Massey Paramount Staffing, Inc.

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 1 of 12
U.S. District Court Western District of Tennessee (Memphis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−02624−JPM−cgc

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Paramount Staffing, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Jon Phipps McCalla Referred to: Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/22/2006 Date Terminated: 08/19/2010 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Deidre Smith BREWER & BARLOW PLC 1755 Kirby Parkway Suite 110 Memphis, TN 38120 901−757−3360 Fax: 901−757−3361 Email: deidre@brewerbarlow.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Faye A. Williams EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0088 Email: faye.williams@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0136 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Lee EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0136 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald S. Cooper EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 2 of 12
Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0133 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven W. Dills EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1407 Union Avenue Suite 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0107 Fax: 901−544−0107 Email: steven.dills@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry L. Beck EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0138 Fax: 901−544−0111 TERMINATED: 01/10/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnnie L. Johnson , III EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 621 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0136 Fax: 901−544−0111 Email: johnnie.johnson@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 09/20/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sally Ramsey CONSTANGY BROOKS & SMITH, LLP − Nashville Suntrust Plaza 401 Commerce Street Suite 1010 Nashville, TN 37219 615−320−5200 Fax: 615−321−5891 Email: sramsey@constangy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Paramount Staffing, Inc.

represented by Paul E. Prather LITTLER MENDELSON, PLC 3725 Champion Hills Drive Suite 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 901−795−6695 Fax: 901−795−1646

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 3 of 12
Email: pprather@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda Nelson Canale LITTLER MENDELSON, PLC 3725 Champion Hills Drive Suite 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 901−795−6695 Fax: 901−795−1646 Email: bcanale@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George W. Loveland , II LITTLER MENDELSON, PLC 3725 Champion Hills Drive Suite 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 901−795−6695 Fax: 901−795−1646 Email: gloveland@kiesewetterwise.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Hymowitz KIESEWETTER WISE KAPLAN & PRATHER, PLC 3725 Champion Hills Drive Ste. 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 901−795−6695 Fax: 901−795−1646 Email: steven.hymowitz@odnss.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sylvia R. Adams KIESEWETTER WISE KAPLAN & PRATHER, PLC 3725 Champion Hills Drive Ste. 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 901−795−6695 Fax: 901−795−1646 Email: sadams@kiesewetterwise.com TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/22/2006
12/29/2006 01/10/2007 01/11/2007
02/08/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Paramount Staffing, Inc. (Filing fee $350.00 waived) , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(cas) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
2 ANSWER to Complaint by Paramount Staffing, Inc..(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Johnnie L. Johnson, III on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Johnson, Johnnie) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
4 Notice of Correction to 3 Notice of Appearance to correct inadvertent omission of Terry Beck. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Notice of Appearance)(Johnson, Johnnie) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
5 SETTING LETTER: Scheduling Conference set for 2/26/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 − Memphis before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Please email the proposed

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 4 of 12

02/16/2007 02/22/2007 03/15/2007 09/17/2007 09/20/2007 01/09/2008 01/10/2008 02/07/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 05/13/2008
05/14/2008
05/14/2008
05/16/2008

joint scheduling order to ECF_Judge_Vescovo@tnwd.uscourts.gov by Tuesday, February 20, 2007. If the order is approved and filed, the conference will be canceled.Please see Judge Vescovo's Rule 16(b) instructions at www.tnwd.uscourts.gov under Instructions, Procedures and Attachments to Notices.(crv) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
6 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Paramount Staffing, Inc. listing corporate parent as no parent company. (Prather, Paul) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
7 SCHEDULING ORDER −− Entry of this order cancels the scheduling conference set 2/26/2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 2/22/2007. (Vescovo, Diane) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/23/2007 (crv, ). (Entered: 02/22/2007)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by George W. Loveland, II on behalf of Paramount Staffing, Inc. (Loveland, George) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
9 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Proposed Order Submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
10 PLAINTIFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIONS ORDER ON MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/20/07. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
11 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Proposed Order Submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
12 ORDER granting 11 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Terry L. Beck terminated. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/9/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
13 MOTION to Amend/Correct 7 Scheduling Order (Proposed Order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
14 ORDER granting 13 PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/8/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 8/18/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 10/16/2008. (jae, ) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
15 Second MOTION MOdify Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order re 7 Scheduling Order (Proposed Order Submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, # 2 Exhibit No. 1 − Smith letter, dated 2−27−08, # 3 Exhibit No. 2− Loveland letter, dated 3−25−08, # 4 Exhibit No. 3 − Loveland letter, dated 4−7−08, # 5 Exhibit Lov eland letter, dated 4−9−08, # 6 Exhibit No. 5 − Unreported Case − Sloan v. Cattron, Inc., # 7 Exhibit No. 6 − Unreported Case − Davis v. Runyon, # 8 Exhibit No. 7 − Cardenas depo excerpts)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
16 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 15 Second MOTION MOdify Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order re 7 Scheduling Order (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Filer did not include a certificate of consultation with the motion. Filer should submit certificate under "Other documents − Attachments" allowing filer to link this document to entry # 15. The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency. (jae, ) Modified on 5/15/2008 to remove duplicate wording(jae, ). (Entered: 05/14/2008)
17 ATTACHMENT Certificate of Consultation (inadvertently omitted from filing) to 15 Second MOTION MOdify Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order re 7 Scheduling Order (Proposed Order Submitted)Second MOTION MOdify Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order re 7 Scheduling Order (Proposed Order Submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Dills, Steven) Modified on 5/15/2008 to remove duplicate wording (jae, ). (Entered: 05/14/2008)
18 MOTION for Protective Order proposed Order submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective Order, # 2

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 5 of 12

05/19/2008 05/22/2008 05/23/2008
05/23/2008
05/28/2008
05/28/2008 06/02/2008
06/09/2008
06/10/2008 06/10/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/25/2008

Certificate of Consultation)(Loveland, George) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
19 ORDER REFERRING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION: 18 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Paramount Staffing, Inc. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 5/19/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven W. Dills on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Dills, Steven) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
21 COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 20 Notice of Appearance filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been filed. For future reference, please note : In order to receive the notice of electronic filing (NEF), when submitting a notice of appearance, be sure that you select "Yes" to "Notice". Clerk's office has corrected the filing and attorney Steven Dills should now be noticed on all filings. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jae, ) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
22 MOTION to Compel by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel, # 2 Exhibit 1 − January 23, 2008 letter, # 3 Exhibit 2 February 7, 2008 letter, # 4 Exhibit 3 February 22, 2008 letter, # 5 Exhibit 4 March 4, 2008 letter, # 6 Exhibit 5 March 12 letter, # 7 Exhibit 6 March 19, 2008 letter, # 8 Exhibit 7 March 20, 2008 letter, # 9 Exhibit 8 March 27, 2008 letter, # 10 Exhibit 9 March 28, 2008 letter, # 11 Exhibit 10 April 9, 2008 letter, # 12 Exhibit 11 April 25, 2008 letter, # 13 Exhibit 12 May 9 letter, # 14 Exhibit 13 May 19, 2008 letter, # 15 Exhibit 14 May 21, 2008 letter, # 16 Exhibit 15 May 21, 2008 letter, # 17 Certificate of Consultation)(Loveland, George) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
23 RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 Second MOTION MOdify Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order re 7 Scheduling Order (Proposed Order Submitted)Second MOTION MOdify Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order re 7 Scheduling Order (Proposed Order Submitted)Second MOTION MOdify Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order re 7 Scheduling Order (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Loveland, George) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
24 ORDER REFERRING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION: 22 MOTION to Compel filed by Paramount Staffing, Inc. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 5/28/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
25 RESPONSE in Opposition re 18 MOTION for Protective Order proposed Order submitted (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, # 2 Exhibit No. 1 − Letter to Loveland, dated 4−7−08, # 3 Exhibit No. 2 − Paramount Press Release, dated 8−3−06)(Dills, Steven) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Compel (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Response in Opposition, # 2 Exhibit No. 1 − Unpublished Case − EEOC v. Grace Episcopal Churdh, # 3 Exhibit No. 2 − Unpublished Case − EEOC v. Venator Group, # 4 Exhibit No. 3 − Cardenas deposition excerpts)(Dills, Steven) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
27 ORDER granting 15 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/10/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery ddl by 12/30/2008. Dispositive Motions ddl by 2/27/2009. (ehg, ) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
28 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 6/16/2008. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn added. Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo no longer assigned to case per 28 Order. (cas) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
29 ORDER denying 22 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 6/25/2008. (Cohn, Gerald) (Entered: 06/25/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 6 of 12

07/14/2008 08/22/2008
08/27/2008 08/28/2008
09/03/2008 09/16/2008 09/16/2008 09/17/2008 09/22/2008 10/14/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/17/2008
10/17/2008 11/18/2008

30 ORDER granting 18 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/14/2008. (Cohn, Gerald) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
31 MOTION for Summary Judgment [Proposed] Order and Documents Submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 − Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4 − Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
32 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Agreed Protective Order)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
33 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 32 Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Paramount Staffing, Inc. has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Proposed orders should be emailed to chambers, not published to CM/ECF. The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency. (jae) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
34 ORDER granting JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/03/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
35 Joint MOTION to Modify Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (Proposed Order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
36 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 09/16/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
37 SETTING LETTER: Telephonic Hearing re: 31 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment Based Upon EEOCs Failure to Conciliate in Good Faith set for 11/19/2008 03:00 PM before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
38 RESPONSE in Opposition re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment [Proposed] Order and Documents Submitted filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit of Deidre Smith)(Dills, Steven) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
39 MOTION for Leave to File [Proposed] Order Submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memo in Support of Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Reply, # 2 Certificate of Consultation Certificate of Consultation)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
40 ORDER SETTING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL DATES. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/16/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Pretrial Order due by 9/15/2009. Jury Trial set for 9/28/2009 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Pretrial Conference set for 9/22/2009 08:45 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jae) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
41 SETTING LETTER: Jury Trial set for 9/28/2009 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Pretrial Conference set for 9/22/2008 08:45 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 4:30 PM on 9/15/2009. (jpw) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
42 MOTION to Amend/Correct 37 Setting Letter Proposed Order Submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation Certificate of Consultation)(Nelson, Brenda) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
43 ORDER granting 39 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/18/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/18/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 7 of 12

11/18/2008 11/26/2008 02/20/2009 02/23/2009 02/24/2009 02/24/2009
03/09/2009 04/09/2009
04/13/2009
04/27/2009 05/07/2009 05/13/2009 05/15/2009 05/26/2009 06/01/2009 06/09/2009

44 ORDER denying as moot 42 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT SETTING LETTER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/18/08. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
45 REPLY to Response to Motion re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment [Proposed] Order and Documents Submitted filed by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Prather, Paul) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
46 MOTION to Amend/Correct 7 Scheduling Order proposed order submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
47 ORDER granting 46 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/23/09. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
48 AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/24/09. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
49 SETTING LETTER: Jury Trial reset for 11/16/2009 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Pretrial Conference reset for 11/6/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/30/2009. (jpw) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
50 ORDER denying 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/9/09. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
51 MOTION for Protective Order (Proposed Protective Order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective Order or Motion to Quash Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit A − Sharp Subpoena(s), # 3 Exhibit B − Schmitt Subpoena, # 4 Exhibit C − Nelson April 6 Letter, # 5 Exhibit D − Sharp April 7 Letter, # 6 Exhibit E− Smith Declaration, # 7 Exhibit F − Sharp Declaration, # 8 Certificate of Consultation)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
52 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 51 MOTION for Protective Order (Proposed Protective Order submitted) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/13/09. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
53 RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 MOTION for Protective Order (Proposed Protective Order submitted) filed by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Nelson, Brenda) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
54 ORDER denying 51 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/7/2009. (Cohn, Gerald) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
55 MOTION to Amend/Correct Proposed Order and Supporting Documents Submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
56 NOTICE of Appearance by Sylvia R. Adams on behalf of all defendants (Adams, Sylvia) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
57 RESPONSE to Motion re 55 MOTION to Amend/Correct Proposed Order and Supporting Documents Submitted filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Dills, Steven) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
58 SETTING LETTER: Telephonic Hearing re: 55 Defendant's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order set for 6/10/2009 08:45 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
59 ORDER REASSIGNING REFERRAL JUDGE pursuant to Administrative Order 2009−14. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn no longer assigned to case. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/9/09. (jae) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/9/2009: # 1 Order) (jae). (Entered: 06/09/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 8 of 12

06/10/2009
06/10/2009 06/10/2009 09/04/2009 09/04/2009 12/14/2009
12/17/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 01/07/2010 01/20/2010

60 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Telephonic Hearing re: 55 Defendant's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order held on 6/10/2009. Motion heard and granted. Jury Trial reset to 8/30/2010 at 9:30 AM. Pretrial Conference reset to 8/23/2010 at 9:00 AM. Pretrial Order due by 4:30 PM on 8/16/2010. New Scheduling Order to be entered. (Plaintiff: Deidre Smith, Steven Dills) (Defense: Paul Prather, Sylvia Adams, Brenda Rae Nelson) (Court Reporter: Brenda Parker) (jpw) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
61 SETTING LETTER: Jury Trial reset for 8/30/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Pretrial Conference reset for 8/23/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/16/2010. (jpw) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
62 ORDER Following Status Conference and Granting 55 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/10/09. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
63 Joint MOTION for Leave to Modify the Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) Scheduling Order to Set New Deadlines (proposed order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to Modify the Scheduling Order)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
64 ORDER GRANTING JOINT 63 MOTION TO MODIFY RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 09/04/09. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
65 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit T, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit U, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit V, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit W, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit X, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit Y, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit Z, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit AA, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit BB)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
66 MOTION to Extend Deadline to Respond to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp (proposed order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Extend Deadline, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Dills, Steven) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
67 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Proposed Order Submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion to Exceed the Page Limit)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
68 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED 66 MOTION TO MODIFY DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT REPORT AND TRIALTESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SHARP. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/18/09. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
69 TEXT ONLY ORDER: GRANTING 67 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (***no images associated with this entry***). Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/18/09. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
70 SETTING LETTER: Telephonic Hearing re: 65 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp set for 2/25/2010 03:00 PM before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
71 MOTION Reschedule the Telephonic Hearing on Its Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp re 70 Setting Letter Proposed Order Submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Nelson, Brenda) (Entered: 01/20/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 9 of 12

01/25/2010 01/25/2010 01/25/2010 01/27/2010 01/28/2010 02/05/2010
02/09/2010 02/18/2010 02/18/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010

72 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 65 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp (proposed order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Support, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
73 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING ON MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT REPORT AND TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SHARP. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/25/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
74 TEXT−ONLY ORDER GRANTING 72 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff has until January 29, 2010 to file a response. (**No Image Associated with this Order**). Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/25/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
75 MOTION to Amend/Correct 74 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, proposed order submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Dills, Steven) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
76 TEXT−ONLY ORDER GRANTING 75 Motion to Amend/Correct Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiff has until February 5, 2010 to file a response. (**No Image Associated with this Order**). Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/28/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
77 RESPONSE in Opposition re 65 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp (Proposed Order submitted) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Response, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Defendants Response to Plaintiff's Req for Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Sharp Rebuttal Report, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Conrado depo excerpts, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Cardenas depo excerpts, # 6 Exhibit Detail by Purchase Order, # 7 Exhibit Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, # 8 Exhibit 7 − Sharp Expert Report, # 9 Exhibit 8 − Sharp depo excerpts, # 10 Exhibit 9 − Baker depo excerpts, # 11 Exhibit 9a − Exhibit 6 to Baker depo, # 12 Exhibit 10 − Baldus and Cole article, # 13 Exhibit Paetzold and Willborn article, # 14 Exhibit 12 − Appendix H to Baker Report, # 15 Exhibit 13 − Appendix N to Baker Report, # 16 Exhibit 14 − Rush depo excerpts, # 17 Exhibit 15 − Abram depo excerpts, # 18 Exhibit 16 − Beason depo excerpts, # 19 Exhibit 17 − Brown depo excerpts, # 20 Exhibit 18 − Cummings depo excerpts, # 21 Exhibit 19 − A Davis depo excerpts, # 22 Exhibit 20 − L Davis depo excerpts, # 23 Exhibit 21 − Douglas depo excerpts, # 24 Exhibit 22 − Drinkwater depo excerpts, # 25 Exhibit 23 − Gardner depo excerpts, # 26 Exhibit 24 − Gilmore−Marshal depo excerpts, # 27 Exhibit 25 − Jennings depo excerpts, # 28 Exhibit 26 − Lee depo excerpts, # 29 Exhibit 27 − Lester depo excerpts, # 30 Exhibit 28 − G Mitchell depo excerpts, # 31 Exhibit 29 − J Mitchell depo excerpts, # 32 Exhibit 30 − Morrison depo excerpts, # 33 Exhibit 31 − Nelson depo excerpts, # 34 Exhibit 32 − Wooten depo excerpts)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
78 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 77 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,, The attached exhibit was inadvertently omitted from the exhibits filed with Docket 77. Ex 33 − Winkleby and Rockhill article, relates to FN 23 of Plaintiff's Memo. (Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
79 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp (Proposed Order Submitted) by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Prather, Paul) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
80 TEXT−ONLY ORDER GRANTING 79 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Reply. (**No Images Associated with this Order**). Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/17/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
81 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven Hymowitz on behalf of Paramount Staffing, Inc. (Hymowitz, Steven) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
82 REPLY to Response to Motion re 79 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by Paramount

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 10 of 12

02/23/2010 02/23/2010 02/25/2010
02/25/2010 02/26/2010 03/03/2010 03/03/2010 03/05/2010

Staffing, 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)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
83 MOTION for Leave to File to File Sur−Reply in Support of its Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp (proposed order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
84 TEXT−ONLY ORDER GRANTING 83 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply. Plaintiff must file its sur−reply by 9:00 a.m. on February 25, 2010. (**No Images Associated with this Order**). Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/23/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
85 REPLY to Response to Motion re 65 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Depo excerpts of Shannon Hayes, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Depo excerpts of Mary Jacobs, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Depo excerpts of Anthony Jennings, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Depo excerpts of Wilma Jones, # 6 Exhibit 5 − Depo excerpts of Gladys Mitchell, # 7 Exhibit 6 − Depo excerpts of Tina Morrison, # 8 Exhibit 7 − Depo excerpts of Obbrel Nelson, # 9 Exhibit 8 − Depo excerpts of Angela Price, # 10 Exhibit 9 − Depo excerpts of Chester Reed, # 11 Exhibit 10 − Depo excerpts of Sherrita Smith, # 12 Exhibit 11 − Depo excerpts of James Taylor, # 13 Exhibit 12 − Depo excerpts of Leslie Wooten, # 14 Exhibit 13 − Depo excerpts of Deborah Bady, # 15 Exhibit 14 − Depo excerpts Alfredo Cardenas, # 16 Exhibit 15 − Depo excerpts of James Culp, # 17 Exhibit 16 − Depo excerpts of Jeromie Holmes, # 18 Exhibit 17 − Depo excerpts of Yvonne Lester, # 19 Exhibit 18 − Depo excerpts of Yariela Conrado, # 20 Exhibit 19 − Mary Dunn Baker depo Exhit 5, # 21 Exhibit 20 − Depo excerpts of Mary Dunn Baker, # 22 Exhibit 21 − Sharp Reply Report, # 23 Exhibit 22 −Depo excerpts of Lawrence Schmitt)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
86 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Hearing re: 65 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp held on 2/25/2010. Arguments heard. Sworn witness for the Plaintiff: Dr. David Sharp. Defense counsel to consult and decide if they wish to call any witnesses. Parties to contact the case manager if they wish to put on additional proof/tesimony. (for Plaintiff: Deidre Smith) (for Defense: Paul Prather, Brenda Nelson, Steven Hymowitz) (Court Reporter: Brenda Parker) (jpw) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
87 RESPONSE to Motion re 83 MOTION for Leave to File to File Sur−Reply in Support of its Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp (proposed order submitted) MOTION for Leave to File to File Sur−Reply in Support of its Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp (proposed order submitted) filed by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
88 MOTION for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief Following the February 25, 2010 Hearing (proposed order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
89 TEXT−ONLY ORDER GRANTING 88 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief. (***No Images Associated with this Order***). Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/3/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
90 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 65 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Trial Testimony of Dr. David Sharp (Supplemental Brief Following the February 25, 2010 Hearing) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Census Data, # 2 Exhibit 2 Depo excerpts of Alfredo Cardenas, # 3 Exhibit 3 Depo excerpts of Dexter Rush, # 4 Exhibit 4 Depo excerpts of Bobett Collins, # 5 Exhibit 5 Depo excerpts of Michelle Douglas, # 6 Exhibit Depo excerpts of Shannon Hayes, # 7 Exhibit 7 Depo excerpts of Kevin German)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 11 of 12

03/19/2010 03/23/2010 03/25/2010 03/26/2010 04/07/2010 04/19/2010
04/19/2010 04/20/2010 04/20/2010 04/23/2010

91 MOTION to Strike Supplemental Rule 26 disclosure, proposed order submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Certificate of Consultation, # 3 Exhibit Def. Disclosure of March 15, 2010, # 4 Exhibit Letter dated March 16, 2010)(Dills, Steven) Modified on 4/19/2010 (jml).Exhibit Def. Disclosure of March 15, 2010, sealed from further viewing(consist of personal identifiers per Nancy from EEOC). (Entered: 03/19/2010)
92 ORDER OF REFERENCE FOR DETERMINATION: 91 MOTION to Strike Supplemental Rule 26 disclosure, proposed order submitted filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/23/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
93 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Motion and Memorandum by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
94 TEXT−ONLY ORDER GRANTING 93 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The discovery deadline is extended to May 31, 2010. (**No Image Associated with this Order**). Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/26/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
96 NOTICE OF SETTING: A MOTION HEARING has been set for MONDAY, 4/19/2010 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom M3 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton. (bvh) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
97 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton: Motion Hearing held on 4/19/2010 re 91 MOTION to Strike Supplemental Rule 26 disclosure filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Counsel for the parties present. Plaintiff states that defendant has produced over 700 individuals in their supplemental disclosures with no identifying information provided. Plaintiff attempted to research the individuals names and was not able to locate several. Plaintiff has requested from defendant the names of individuals that can be deposed and has not received a response. Plaintiff believes there is not enough time to locate and have depositions for the individuals within the remaining discovery period. Defendant agrues that the plaintiff disclosed over 1200 individuals. Defendant states that the plaintiff is aware of who the individuals are and what they will testify about. Defendant is having the same problem as the plaintiff with regards to locating and contacting the individuals due to disconnected phone numbers, etc. Defendant estimates that they will be able to produce about 20 individuals for deposition. Defendant expects to have the individuals narrowed down from the original 700 by the end of the week. Plaintiff agrues that they should be provided with an estimate of the number of individuals being produced as soon as possible. The Court orders that the defendant may not produce more than 50 individuals for deposition and that the defendant is to supplement their disclosures by Friday, April 23, 2010. Plaintiff is to draft an order, circulate to defense counsel, and submit it to the Court for final approval and entry within one week. The Court also address the issue of some individual personal information being contained in exhibits to the Motion and Response. The parties are directed to submit redacted copies of their respective exhibits. Parties are to contact the Court's ECF Help Desk is assistance is needed in filing the redacted copies.(Plaintiffs Counsel: D. Smith & S. Dills. Defense Counsel: B. Nelson.) (Tape #FTR) (cas) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
98 ORAL ORDER. By Oral Order of the Court Docket Entry # 91 Motion and Docket Entry # 95 Response have been SEALED from public view due to personal information being contained in the documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton on 4/19/2010. *TEXT ENTRY ONLY − THERE IS NO IMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ORDER*(Claxton, Charmiane) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
99 REDACTION Exhibit C by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Nelson, Brenda) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
100 REDACTION to 91 MOTION to Strike Supplemental Rule 26 disclosure, proposed order submitted (Redaction to Exhibit 3 of 91 ) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Dills, Steven) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
101 MOTION to Extend Deadline Proposed Order Submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Nelson, Brenda) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-2624 As of: 06/08/2017 03:15 PM CDT 12 of 12

04/26/2010 04/26/2010
05/12/2010 05/12/2010 05/17/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 06/10/2010
06/10/2010
07/20/2010
07/23/2010 07/29/2010 07/30/2010 08/05/2010 08/09/2010 08/19/2010 08/19/2010

102 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 91 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton on 4/26/2010. (Claxton, Charmiane) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
103 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 101 MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES BY ONE WEEK TO APRIL 30, 2010. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/26/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
104 MOTION to Extend Deadline proposed order submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Nelson, Brenda) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
105 ORDER GRANTING 104 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline to May 31, 2010. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 5/12/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
106 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 65 MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT REPORT AND TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SHARP. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 5/17/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
107 MOTION for Discovery to Modify the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (proposed order submitted)) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Suport of Motion to Modify)(Williams, Faye) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
108 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 107 MOTION TO MODIFY RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 5/28/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
109 MOTION for Discovery "Plaintiff's Unoppossed Motion to Modify the Rule 16(b) Schedulng Order to Take Depositions Out of Time" (proposed order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Modify the Schedulding Order, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
110 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED 109 MOTION TO MODIFY THE RULE 16(B) SCHEDULING ORDER TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS OUT OF TIME. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/10/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
111 Joint MOTION for Discovery (Joint Motion to Modify the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b) Scheduling Order [proposed order submitted] by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for Modification)(Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
112 ORDER GRANTING JOINT 111 MOTION TO MODIFY RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER AND PRETRIAL PROCEDURES. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 7/23/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
113 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Proposed Order Submitted by Paramount Staffing, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Prather, Paul) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
114 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 113 MOTION TO ALLOW THE WITHDRAWAL OF SYLVIA R. ADAMS. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 7/30/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
115 NOTICE of Settlement and Request to Submit Consent Decree Within 15 Days of the Entry of the Order of this Court (proposed order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Smith, Deidre) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
116 ORDER ON NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 8/9/10. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
117 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 08/19/2010. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
118 JUDGMENT. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 8/19/2010. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 08/19/2010)