IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLI .~:.~I..~ , EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

CATERPILLAR, INC. Defendants.

AUG I
) )

CIVIL ACTION NO.
7
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL Y)E rA’ ’ LON

NATURE OF THE ACTION ~v’~AGISTBA-[’I:- JU~E NOLAN

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et se% ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race to provide appropriate relief to George Ervin, Stanly McCallum and Rickey McNeal who were adversely affected by such practices.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action is brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to § 706(f)(1), § 706(0(3), and § 707(a) through (c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) §2000e-5(f)(3), and §2000e6(a) through (c). 3. This court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, 1345, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(3), 2000e-6(a-c), and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.

2
4. The unlawful acts alIeged below were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
PARTIE._.~S 5. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or 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), § 707(a) and §707(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e5(0(1), §2000e-6(a), and §2000e-6(c). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Caterpillar, Inc. has continuously been a corporation doing business in Will County, Illinois. 7. At all reIevant times, Caterpillar, Inc. has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 8. At all relevant times, Caterpillar, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70 l(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 9. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Stanley McCallum, Rickey McNeal and George Ervins filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Caterpillar, Inc. 10. On about March 4, 2002, the EEOC issued Letters of Determination to CaterpilIar, Inc. finding that Defendant had discriminated against McCallum, McNeat and Ervins. 11. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), EEOC’s representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with Title VII prior to institution of this lawsuit but EEOC was unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement.

-312. AI1 conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 13. In 2000 and 2001, Defendant failed to use reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly acts of racial harassment against Ervins, McCallum and McNeal perpetrated by co-workers and a supervisor in continuing violation of §703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). These unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to, failing to use reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly racially harassing behavior by co-workers, and also a supervisor’s engaging in racial harassment and condoning racial harassment ofErvins, McCalIum and McNeal by co-workers. 14. The result of the practices complained of in paragraph 13 has been to deprive Stanly McCallum, Rickey McNeaI and George Ervins of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race. 15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 16. The unlawful practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ervins, McCallum and McNeal.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal empIoyment opportunities for its empIoyees regardless of race, and which eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant to make whole Stanley McCallum, Rickey McNeal and George Ervins by providing compensation for non-pecuniary Iosses resulting from those unlawful employment practices including emotional pain, humiliation, and inconvenience in amounts to be determined at trial;

-4-
D. Order Defendant to pay Stanley McCallum, Rickey McNeal and George Ervins punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct in an amount to be determined at trial.
E. Prohibit Defendant from discriminating against any individual for engaging in protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII, or for participating in this law suit;
F. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
G. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

-5-
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel ~8qual E0I "L~I Ow~/~°rtunity Commission/
~e ~ alH~o~cks°ff
Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7525 D :\Myfiies\C aterpillarRace\complaint.wpd

Civil Cover Sheet

httf~’Xvw.ilnd.uscourts.gov/PUBLIC/Forms/autoj s44.e
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT /(...-C..-) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS~i/

This automated JS~44 conforms generally to the ~anual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of~e United S~tes September 1974. The data is required for ~e use of the Clerk of Cou~ for the pu~ose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The information contained herein ~ei~er replaces nor supplements the filing and servic~ of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for use ~ in the NoEhern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff(s): U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
County of Residence:

Defendant(s):Caterpillar, Inc.
AUG 1 2003
County of Residence: Will

Plaintiffs Atty: Gordon G. Waldron Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661
(312) 353-7525

Defendant’s Arty:

Michael Warner Seyfarth Shaw 55 East Monroe St., Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603-5803

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 1. U.S. Gov’t Plai~,tiff
III, Citizenship of Principal Parties (Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A Defendant:- N/A

5637

IV. Ori ig~ ¯

1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

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

2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices

on the basis of race.

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action:

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case IS NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

Signature: 1 of 2

In the Matter of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS r ,~.~ ~’ ~,- "" ~
EASTERN DIVISION

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

v.

Plaintiff,

Caterpillar, Inc.

Defendant.

Case Number:= ~ ,~ ..... ,...::~.;:, f
DOCI ETED

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S) FOR: Al, lfi l 3 2003
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff

(A)

NAME Gordon G. Waldron

~’RM Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

STREETADD~SS 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2800

ST~TAO~SS 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2800

CITY/STATE/ZIP Chicago, IIlinois 60661

TELEPHONE NOMBER

FAX NUMBER

E-M(3A1,2L)A3D53O-R7E5.25Gordon.Wa(3ld1r2on) @35ee3o-c8.g5o5v5

CITY/STATE/LIP
Chicago, Illinois 60661

TELEPHONE NUMBER

FAX NUMBER

E-(M312A) I88’6O-91R24 Gregory. Gochano(u3r]@2) e35e3o-c8.55g5ov

IDENTIFICAT[ON NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ARDC No. 02920646
MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YES []

NO

[]

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM .4 ON REVERSE) ARDC No. 06210804

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YES

TPdAL ATTORNEY?
~IGNA~OCAL COUNSEL?

YES
(D)

[] NO []
[] no []

ME~" Jo C. Hendricksl[~" IF ~"

¯ NAME

~l~ ,~uaI Ernployme~t Opportunity Commission FIRM

~ss 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2800

CITY/STATE~I P Chicago, Illinois 60661

TELEPHONE NUMBER
(312) 353-8551

FAX NUMBER
(312) 353-8555

E-MAIL ADDRESS Jolm.Hendrickson@eeoc.gov

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON RE~/ERSE)
ARDC No. 01187589

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YES []

NO

[]

T~AL A~rrORNEY?

YES []

NO

[]

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES

[]

NO

[]

STREET ADDRESS CITY/STA~fF./ZIP

TELEPHONE NUMBER

FAX NUMBER

E-MAlL ADDRESS

IDENTIFICATION NtdMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? TRIAL A~fORNEY? DESlGNAT.~D AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES [] NO [] YES [] No []
YES

 
 Minule Order Form (06197)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

Suzanne B. Conlon

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER

03 C 5637

DATE

3/25/2004

CASE TITLE
MOTION:

EEOC vs. CATERPILLAR
[In the followingbox(a) indicate the party filingthe motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(I) o

Filed motion of [use listing in "Motion" box above.]

(2) o

Brief in support of motion due ___.

(3) o

Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due___.

(4) o

Ruling/Hearing on ___ set for ___ at ___.

(5) o

Status hearing[heldlcontinued to] [set for/re-set for] on ___ set for _ _ _ at ___.

(6) o

Pretrial conference[heldlcontinued to] [set forlre-set for] on _ _ _ set for ___ at ___.

(7) o

Trial[set forlre-set for] on _ _ _ at _ _ _.

(8) o

[Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] heldlcontinued to ___ at ___.

(9) o

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreementlpursuant to]
o FRCP4(m) 0 Local Rule 41.1 0 FRCP41(a)(l) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) •

[Other docket entry] Defendant's motion for summary judgment [25-1], plaintiffs' motion for

partial summary judgment [21-1] and motion in limine [21-2] are denied. The joint final pretrial order

and agreed pattern jury instructions shall be presented on April 22, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs' draft

shall be submitted to defendant by April 13, 2004. Trial is set on May 27, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. SEE

REVERSE FOR DETAILS.

(II) •

[For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.]

No notices requircd, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff Notified counsel by telephone.

262004

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom

.I_",G:..(, "I0,.. c.".;'7.J 'C" : ~CUl

CB

deputy's

PW

initials

mailing deputy inilials

--------------------------~-----~~---
(Reserved for use by the Court)
ORDER

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") sues Caterpillar Inc. seeking relief on behalf ofthree current and

former African-American employees, Stanley McCallum, George Ervins and Rickey McNeal, for racial harassment in violation ofTitle VII

of the Civil Rights Actof 1964, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e el seq and Title 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C § 1981a. McCallum, Ervins

and McNeal have intervened. Caterpillar moves for summary judgment on all claims. The EEOC and the intervenors (collectively

"plaintiffs") jointly move for partial summary judgment and in limine to bar certain evidence at trial.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving papers and affidavits show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celolex Corp. v. Calrell, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); King v. National Human Resource Committee, Inc., 218 F.3d 719, 723 (7th Cir. 2000). The summary judgment standard is applied with special

scrutiny to employmentdiscrimination cases because the outcome may depend on determinations ofcredibility and intent. Michas v. Health

Cosl Canlrols ofIllinois, 209 F.3d 687, 692 (7· Cir. 2000).

Caterpillar contends summary judgment is proper because the alleged incidents of racial harassment proffered by plaintiffs arc

not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be deemed an actionable hostile work environment and because it took prompt and appropriate

corrective action. Conversely, plaintiffs contend partial summaryjudgment is proper because Caterpillar did not fulfill, as a matter oflaw,

its seventh affirmative defense, i.e., that it "exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any racially harassing behavior." Def.

Answer at 6.

Whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive is dependant upon the totality of circumstances, including "the frequency

ofthc discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it was physically threatening or humiliating; or a mere offensive utterance; and whether

it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17,23 (1993). Harassment must be both

objectively and subjectively hostile; plaintiffs must show a reasonable person would find the harassment hostile or abusive, and that they

personally found it to be so. Genlry v. Exporl Paclwging Co., 238 F.3d 842, 850 (7" Cir. 200 I).

The record supports a reasonable inference that plaintiffs subjectively believed work conditions at Caterpillar were hostile.

According to plaintiffs, they complained about harassing conduct that they found offensive and upsetting on numerous occasions throughout

their employment. Taking plaintiffs' account as true, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the conditions were hostile from

an objective standpoint. Graffiti of a gallows with a hangman's noose around the head of a stick figure, graffiti ofa cargo plane dropping

KKK crosses, racial graffiti in a frequented restroom ("kill a1\ niggers black and white," "it's Aryan," "KKK," "arc all niggers brothers,"

and a drawing of a swastika), and Caucasian employees whistling at plaintiffs like dogs may be severely offensivc. These incidents

purportedly occurred within months of African-American employee James Mack's discovery of an actual noose in his work area and being

called "boy" by a Caucasian employee. These incidents known by at least two plaintiffs support an inference of objective hostility. See

Gleason v. Mesirow Financial, Inc., 118 F.3d 1134, 1144 (7th Cir. 1997) ("incidents [of harassment] - directed at others and not the plaintiff

- do have some relevance in demonstrating the existence ofa hostile work environment"). Caterpillar's protestation that many of plaintiffs'

other, additional complaints involving non-racial graffiti, confrontations, and confederate flag insignia do not involve expressly racial

conduct fails to consider context. The same Caucasian employees who were accused or disciplined for the other racial incidents were

implicated in many of these incidents. Qualls v. v. Radix Group Inlern., Inc., No. 98 C 2695, 1999 WL 1267716 at *7 (N. D. III. Nov. 17,

1999). As often stated, there is no "magic threshold number" of incidents required to establish a hostile environment. Daniels v. Essex Group, Inc., 937 F.2d 1264, 1274 (7th Cir. 1991). Drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor, genuine issues of material fact exist

as to whether their work environment was objectively hostile. Although Caterpillar denies or downplays many ofthese incidents, plaintiffs

are entitled to have a factfinder determine whether their testimony is sufficiently credible to overcome the version of events proffered by

Caterpillar's witnesses.

Crediting plaintiffs' version of events, a material issue of fact also exists whether Caterpillar failed to take appropriate remedial

measures in response to harassment complaints. Accordingly, both motions for summary judgment fail. Caterpillar maintains that it had

a harassment policy in place at all relevant times prohibiting racial harassment, promptly investigated plaintiffs' complaints (disciplining

employees where appropriate), and conducted diversity training. On the other hand, plaintiffs claim, inter alia, that Caterpillar failed to

distribute its racial harassment policy to all employees until April 2001, that it completely failed to investigate some incidents and

inadequately investigated others, and that it allowed employees "to lie or refuse to cooperate in the course" of an investigation. Depending

on the resolution ofthese disputed facts, a reasonable jury could conclude that Caterpillar took "prompt and appropriate action reasonably

likely to prevent harassment from recurring." Tulman v. CBS, Inc., 209 F.3d 1044, 1048 (7. Cir. 2000).

Plaintiffs' motion in limine must also be denied. The court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence is clearly

inadmissible for any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&TTechnologies, 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Motions in limine

are disfavored; admissibility questions should be ruled upon as they arise at trial. Jd. If evidence is not clearly inadmissible, evidentiary

rulings must be deferred until trial to allow questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice to be resolved in context. Id. at 1401. Denial

of a motion in limine does not indicate evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial. Instead, denial of the motion

demonstrates the court cannot determine whether the evidence in question should be excluded outside the trial context. United States v.

Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 416 (7" Cir. 1989); Brom v. Bozell, Jacobs, Kenyon & Eckhardl, 867 F.Supp. 686, 690-91 (N.D. III. 1994). The

motion seeks to bar Caterpillar from presenting evidence about the intent ofperpetrators of alleged incidents of racial harassment. Howcver,

that evidence may be probative of the existence of an objectively hostile working environment as well as thc adequacy of Caterpillar'S

response to alleged incidents of racial harassment.

r--.~ . -

-::>./1 J

l ~'Vh

4) 1.2. {J..,A/1AA

D

 
 \IIIIIIW (), d<:r "..."m \ ()o,(J7)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

\"aillc of Assigncd Judgc 01' :\la!,:istnllc JUdgl'
CASE NUMBER

Nan R. Nolan
03 C 5637

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge
DATE

10/12/2004

CASE TITLE
"lOTION:

EEOC vs. Caterpillar, Inc.

[In

the

lo\lowlIlg

box

(a)

IIldleatc

the

party

I-!l.ing

the

mOlion,

e.g.,

plallllltt,

defendant,

Jrd

puny

..
plulntll I,

and

(b)

S\<;\C

bnclly

thl.!

nature

or the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

( 1)

o

Filed motion of [ use listing in "Motion" box above.)

(2) o

Brief in support of motion due _ _ _.

o

Answer brief to 1110tion due_ _ _ . Reply to answer brief due_ _ _ .

(4)

o

Ruling/Hearing on ___ set for ___ at ___.

(5)

o

Statns hearing[held/continued to) [set forlre-set for) on ___ set for ___ at ___.

(0) o

Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set forlre-set for] on ___ set for ___ at ___.

(7) o

Trial[set forlre-set for] on ___ at ___.

(8) o

[8ench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to ___ at ___.

(9)

o

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
o FRCP4(111) 0 Local Rule 41.1 0 FRCP41(a)(I) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) •

[Other docket entry] Jury trial held and concluded. Jury deliberations began. Jury returns vcrdict

in favor of defendant Caterpillar, Inc. Judgment is entered in favor of Caterpillar, Inc. and against

plaintiffs EEOC, Stanley McCallum, George Ervins and Rickey McNeal. Defendant Caterpillar's oral

Rule 50 motions for judgment as a Matter of Law are denied as moot.

( I I) o

[For further detail see order (on reverse side oflattached to) the original minute order.)

-
-;-
-
-

No notices required, advised in open eOllrt. No 1l00ices n.::quired. Notices mailed by judgc'" starr. ?\!o\illed eOllnsci by H.::1cphone. Docketing to mai\ notices. Mail j\() 4.50 form. ('opy to judgdmagisln\\e judge,

number ofnoliccs
Gel 1 4 '1.\)\)1\
d4c do '~CtC(1/1

hll1b

G eO.Llrtroom depulY's
.~ ~inl\i"I'

Date/time received in central Clerk's Ornec

dal~ m~ilcd i\Olicc Ilwling J~pl'ly inili~ls

Document Number

 
 03 C 5637

EEOC v. Caterpillar, Inc.

VERDICT FORM - STANLEY MCCALLUM Racial Hostile Work Environment Claim

_t~~,:~,;~)· ,
. t"'{ '\ II ~~QI !
\~\..\

1. We, the jury, find as follows on plaintiff Stanley McCallum's racial hostile work

environment claim against Caterpillar as defined at pages16-18 of these instructions:

(Place an "X" on the appropriate line)

F I LED

For Stanley McCallum

OCT 122004

For Caterpillar Inc.

'f,.

ClE::::C~~E~~. DOBBINS

, ' . STRICT COURT

If you answer "For Stanley McCallum," proceed to numbers 2 and 3. If you answer "for

Caterpillar Inc.," skip numbers 2-7.

Employer Liability For Co-Worker Conduct 2. We, the jury, find as follows on the issue of employer liability for co-worker conduct as defined at pages 20-21 ofthese instructions: (Place an "X" on the appropriate line) For Stanley McCallum For Caterpillar Inc. Employer Liability For Supervisor Conduct 3. We, the jury, find as follows on the issue of employer liability for supervisor conduct as defmed at pages 22-24 of these instructions: (Place an "X" on the appropriate line) For Stanley McCallum For Caterpillar Inc.
-33-

Ifyou answer "For Stanley McCallum" on one or both of numbers 2 or 3, proceed to numbers 4 and 5. If you answer, "for Caterpillar, Inc.," on both numbers 2 and 3, skip numbers 4-7.
Compensatory Damages (To be answered only if you found for Stanley McCallum on one or both of numbers 2 and 3)
4. We, the jury, find compensatory damages as defined at pages 26-27 of these instructions for Stanley McCallum as follows: (Fill in the amount or if none, write the word "none")
$ , - - - - - - - Compensatory damages
Punitive Damages (To be answered only if you found for Stanley McCallum on one or both of numbers 2 and 3)
5. Has Stanley McCallum proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a managerial employee of Caterpillar acted with malice or reckless indifference to his right not to be harassed based on race in the workplace as defined at page 28 of these instructions? (Place an "X" on the appropriate line)
Yes No If you answer "Yes" to number 5, proceed to answer number 6. If you answer "No" to number 5, skip numbers 6 and 7.
-34-

6. Has Caterpillar proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it made a good faith effort to prevent and correct racial harassment in the workplace as defined at pages 28-29 of these instructions? (Place an "X" on the appropriate line)
Yes No If you answer "Yes" to number 6, skip number 7. If you answer "No" to number 6, proceed to number 7. 7. We, the jury, find punitive damages as defined at pages 28-29 of these instructions for Stanley McCallum as follows: (Fill in the amount or if none, write the word "none") $ _ - - - - - - Punitive damages
-35-

/ L~Cb1~ $se40-
Jc£~
#rff5~'
Date: /0 IrL/O 'I }
-36-

VERDICT FORM - GEORGE ERVINS Racial Hostile Work Environment Claim 1. We, the jury, find as follows on plaintiff George Ervins' racial hostile work environment claim against Caterpillar as defined at pages16-18 of these instructions: (Place an "X" on the appropriate line) For George Ervins For Caterpillar Inc. If you answer "For George Ervins," proceed to numbers 2 and 3. If you answer "for Caterpillar Inc.," skip numbers 2-7.
Employer Liability For Co-Worker Conduct 2. We, the jury, find as follows on the issue of employer liability for co-worker conduct as defined at pages 20-21 of these instructions: (Place an "X" on the appropriate line) For George Ervins For Caterpillar Inc. Employer Liability For Supervisor Conduct 3. We, the jury, find as follows on the issue of employer liability for supervisor conduct as defined at pages 22-24 of these instructions: (Place an "X" on the appropriate line) For George Ervins For Caterpillar Inc.
-37-

. ·
If you answer "For George Ervins" on one or both of numbers 2 or 3, proceed to numbers 4 and 5. If you answer, "for Caterpillar Inc.," on both numbers 2 and 3, skip numbers 4-7.
Compensatory Damages (To be answered only if you found for George Ervins on one or both of numbers 2 and 3) 4. We, the jury, find compensatory damages as defined at pages 26-27 of these instructions for George Ervins as follows: (Fill in the amount or if none, write the word "none")
$ _ - - - - - - Compensatory damages
Punitive Damages (To be answered only if you found for George Ervins on one or both of numbers 2 and 3) 5. Has George Ervins proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a managerial employee of Caterpillar acted with malice or reckless indifference to his right not to be harassed based on race in the workplace as defined at page 28 of these instructions? (Place an "X" on the appropriate line)
Yes No If you answer "Yes" to number 5, proceed to answer number 6. If you answer "No" to number 5, skip numbers 6 and 7.
-38-

6. Has Caterpillar proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it made a good faith effort to prevent and correct racial harassment in the workplace as defined at pages 28-29 of these instructions? (Place an "X" on the appropriate line)
Yes No If you answer "Yes" to number 6, skip number 7. If you answer "No" to number 6, proceed to number 7. 7. We, the jury, find punitive damages as defined at pages 28-29 of these instructions for George Ervins as follows: (Fill in an amount or if none, write the word "none") $ _ - - - - - - Punitive damages
-39-

, - 'J..

Date:

/

0

1/1~/oy
I I

-40-

VERDICT FORM - RICKEY MCNEAL

Racial Hostile Work Environment Claim

1. We, the jury, find as follows on plaintiff Rickey McNeal's racial hostile work

environment claim against Caterpillar as defined at pages 16-18 of these instructions:

(Place an "X" on the appropriate line)

For Rickey McNeal

For Caterpillar Inc.

)(

If you answer "For Rickey McNeal," proceed to numbers 2 and 3. If you answer "for

Caterpillar Inc.," skip numbers 2-7.

Employer Liability For Co-Worker Conduct 2. We, the jury, find as follows on the issue of employer liability for co-worker conduct as defined at pages 20-21 of these instructions: (Place an "X" on the appropriate line) For Rickey McNeal For Caterpillar Inc. Employer Liability For Supervisor Conduct 3. We, the jury, find as follows on the issue of employer liability for supervisor conduct as defined at pages 22-24 of these instructions: (Place an "X" on the appropriate line) For Rickey McNeal For Caterpillar Inc.
-41-

If you answer "For Rickey McNeal" on one or both of numbers 2 or 3, proceed to numbers 4 and 5. If you answer, "for Caterpillar Inc.," on both numbers 2 and 3, skip numbers 4-7.
Compensatory Damages (To be answered only if you found for Rickey McNeal on one or both of numbers 2 and 3) 4. We, the jury, find compensatory damages as defined at pages 26-27 ofthese instructions for Rickey McNeal as follows: (Fill in the amount or if none, write the word "none")
$ _ - - - - - - Compensatory damages
Punitive Damages (To be answered only if you found for Rickey McNeal on one or both of numbers 2 and 3) 5. Has Rickey McNeal proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a managerial employee of Caterpillar acted with malice or reckless indifference to his right not to be harassed based on race in the workplace as defined at page 28 of these instructions? (Place an "X" on the appropriate line)
Yes No If you answer "Yes" to number 5, proceed to answer number 6. If you answer "No" to number 5, skip numbers 6 and 7.
-42-

) 5:
6. Has Caterpillar proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it made a good faith effort to prevent and correct racial harassment in the workplace as defined at pages 28-29 of these instructions? (Place an "X" on the appropriate line)
Yes No If you answer "Yes" to number 6, skip number 7. If you answer "No" to number 6, proceed to number 7. 7. We, the jury, find punitive damages as defined at pages 28-29 of these instructions for Rickey McNeal as follows: (Fill in the amount or if none, write the word "none") $ , - - - - - - - Punitive damages
-43-

Date: !OU-Z-/DY

I

}

-44-

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...
CLOSED, NOLAN, PROTO
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-05637

EEOC, et al v. Caterpillar Inc Assigned to: Hon. Nan R. Nolan Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 08/13/2003 Date Terminated: 04/28/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Gordon G. Waldron United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7525 Fax: (312)35 -8555 Email: gordon.waldron@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886-9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

1 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

Defendant Caterpillar Inc
Intervenor Plaintiff Stanley McCallum

represented by Michael A. Warner Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 (312) 346-8000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason M Torres Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 (312)346-8000 Email: jtorres@seyfarth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johna Gabrielle Gaffke 100 N.E. Adams Street Peoria, IL 61629-7310 (309) 494-1832
Joseph S. Turner Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 (312) 346-8000 Email: jturner@seyfarth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Andrew McGuire Caterpillar, Inc. 100 N.E. Adams Street Peoria, IL 61629 (309) 494-1832
represented by Robert M. Hodge Law Offices 36 South Wabash Avenue Room 1310 Chicago, IL 60603-2906 422-1707 Email: bhmingus@ameritech.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

Intervenor Plaintiff George A Ervins
Intervenor Plaintiff Ricky McNeal
proposed Ruby Edwards TERMINATED: 10/03/2003
proposed James Mack TERMINATED: 10/03/2003
proposed Edmonnzo Samuels TERMINATED: 10/03/2003
proposed Robert L Autman TERMINATED: 10/03/2003

Sheribel F. Rothenberg Attorney at Law 36 South Wabash Suite 1310 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-1222
represented by Robert M. Hodge (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheribel F. Rothenberg (See above for address)
represented by Robert M. Hodge (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheribel F. Rothenberg (See above for address)
represented by Robert M. Hodge (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert M. Hodge (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert M. Hodge (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert M. Hodge (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

Date Filed 08/13/2003 08/15/2003 08/18/2003 08/19/2003 08/22/2003
08/25/2003 08/26/2003 09/02/2003 09/10/2003 09/18/2003 09/19/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Gordon G. Waldron, Gregory M. Gochanour, John C. Hendrickson as attorney(s) for plaintiff (No summons(es) issued.) (Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (rmm) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Michael A. Warner, Joseph S. Turner and M Andrew McGuire (rmm) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Caterpillar Inc by Johna Gabrielle Gaffke (rmm) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
4 RULE 24(A)(1) MOTION by proposed intervenors Stanley McCallum, George A Ervins, Ricky McNeal, Ruby Edwards, James Mack, Edmonnzo Samuels and Robert L Autman for leave to intervene and other relief (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 8/22/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon : Status hearing set on 9/19/03 at 9:00 am. At the status hearing, the parties are to report on the following: 1. Possibility of settlement in the case; 2. If no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and length of discovery necessary to get the case ready for trial. Plaintiff is directed to advise all other parties of the court's action herein and to forward a copy of the court's procedure guidelines to defendant(s). Mailed notice (cgb) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
5 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant Caterpillar Inc sent on 8/13/03 (rmm) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
6 MINUTE ORDER of 8/26/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon: Intervenors Rule 24(A)(1) motion for leave to intervene as parties plaintiff and for other relief [4-1] is stricken for failure to attach proof of service on defendant. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/27/2003)
7 RULE 24(A)(1) MOTION by Stanley McCallum, George A Ervins, Ricky McNeal, Ruby Edwards, James Mack, Edmonnzo Samuels, Robert L Autman for leave to intervene as parties plaintiff and for other relief (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
8 MINUTE ORDER of 9/10/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon : Intervenors' Rule 24(A)(1) motion for leave to intervene as parties plaintiff and for other relief [7-1] is entered and continued to September 19, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. Notices mailed by judge's staff (rmm) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
9 OPPOSITION by defendant to Rule 24(A)(1) motion for leave to intervene by Ruby Edwards, James Mack, Edmonzo Samuels, and Robert Autman [7-1] (Attachments) (rmm) (Entered: 09/19/2003)
10 MINUTE ORDER of 9/19/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon : Status hearing held. Intervenors' Rule 24(A)(1) motion for leave to intervene as parties plaintiff and for other relief [7-1] is granted as to Stanley McCallum, George Ervins and Rickey McNeal. Proposed intervenors shall reply to defendant's opposition to

4 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

09/26/2003 09/26/2003 10/03/2003
10/14/2003 10/15/2003 10/17/2003
11/12/2003
11/19/2003 01/13/2004 01/27/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004

Rule 24(A)(1) motion for leave to intervene as to Ruby Edwards, James Mack, Edmonzo Samuels and Robert Autman by September 26, 2003 [9-1]. Parties to comply with FRCP 26(a)(1) by October 20, 2003. Discovery cut-off and filing of dispositive motions with supporting memoranda set on February 20, 2004. Joint final pretrial order with agreed pattern jury instructions submission set on March 11, 2004 at 9:00 a.m.; plaintiff's draft to be submitted to defendant by March 4, 2004. Case is placed on the March 2004 trial calendar. Firm dates. Parties to contact the clerk if a settlement conference is deemed appropriate. Notices mailed by judge's staff (rmm) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
11 REPLY by proposed intervenors' to defendant's opposition to Rule 24(A)(1) motion for leave to intervene (Attachments); Notice. (ntf) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
12 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor plaintiffs by Robert M. Hodge, Sheribel F. Rothenberg (ntf) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
13 MINUTE ORDER of 10/3/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon: The motion for leave to intervene by Ruby Edwards, James Mack, Edmonzo Samuels and Robert Autman is denied [7-1]. Movants fail to establish they are aggrieved persons within the context of the EEOC's complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P.24(a)(1). Notices mailed by judge's staff (rmm) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
14 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by defendant to complaint [1-1] (rmm) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
15 MOTION by intervenors Stanley McCallum, George A Ervins, Ricky McNeal for leave to file intervenors' complaint ; Notice of motion (eav) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
16 MINUTE ORDER of 10/17/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon : Intervenors' motion for leave to file intervenors' complaint [15-1] is taken under advisement. Any objections shall be filed by 10/30/03. The motion will not be heard on 10/21/03 as noticed. Mailed notice by judge's staff (eav) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
17 MINUTE ORDER of 11/12/03 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon : The unopposed motion for leave to file intervenors' complaint by Stanley McCallum, George A. Ervins and Rickey L. McNeal [15-1] is granted. Defendant shall answer or otherwise plead by 11/19/03. Notices mailed by judge's staff (rmm) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
18 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by defendant Caterpillar Inc to plaintiff-intervenors' complaint (rmm) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
19 LETTER from defendant's attorney M. Andrew McGuire to Clerk's Office dated 1/9/04 (rmm) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
20 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Caterpillar Inc by Jason M Torres (rmm) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
21 MOTION by plaintiff for partial summary judgment , in limine Memorandum of law in support; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
22 STATEMENT of undisputed facts in support of motion for partial summary judgment by plaintiff (rmm) (Entered: 02/24/2004)

5 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

02/20/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004 02/25/2004
02/27/2004
03/04/2004
03/10/2004 03/10/2004 03/10/2004 03/10/2004 03/10/2004 03/10/2004

23 EXHIBITS by plaintiff to motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] (1 volume) (rmm) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
24 MOTION by defendant for entry of agreed protective order ; Notice. (jmm) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
25 MOTION by defendant for summary judgment ; Memorandum of law in support; Notice. (jmm) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
26 RULE 56.1 Statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue by defendant. (jmm) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
27 APPENDIX filed by defendant of materials in support of its motion for summary judgment [25-1]. (jmm) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
28 MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/04 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon: Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] and motion in limine [21-2] and defendant's motion for summary judgment [25-1] are taken under advisement. Responses shall be filed by 03/10/04. Replies, if any, shall be filed by 3/17/04. Pretrial order submission on 03/11/04 is vacated pending disposition of the summary judgment motions. Defendant's motion for entry of agreed protective order is granted [24-1]. (Enter Agreed Protective Order.) Mailed notices by judge's staff. (jmm) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
29 MOTION by plaintiff to substitute Exhibit 5 to the Exhibits in support of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment , and to substitute paragraphs 6 and 16 of plaintiffs' statement of facts (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
30 MINUTE ORDER of 3/4/04 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon : Plaintiff's motion to substitute Exhibit 5 to the Exhibits in support of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [29-1], paragraphs 6 and 16 of plaintiffs' statement of facts [29-2] is granted. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
31 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's summary judgment motion [25-1]; Notice (rmm) Modified on 03/11/2004 (Entered: 03/11/2004)
32 LOCAL RULE 56.1 Statement of additional facts requiring denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs (rmm) Modified on 03/11/2004 (Entered: 03/11/2004)
33 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Caterpillar's Statement of undisputed facts [22-1] (Attachments) (rmm) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
34 LOCAL RULE 56.(B)(3)(B) Statement of uncontested material facts that preclude summary judgment by intervenors (rmm) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
35 EXHIBITS by plaintiffs submitted in response to defendant's summary judgment motion (rmm) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
36 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' statement of undisputed facts [22-1]; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 03/11/2004)

6 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

03/10/2004 03/10/2004 03/10/2004 03/17/2004 03/17/2004 03/17/2004 03/17/2004 03/25/2004
04/15/2004
04/15/2004 04/15/2004 04/15/2004 04/16/2004 04/20/2004

37 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] and motion in limine [21-2] (rmm) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
38 APPENDIX of materials filed by defendant in response to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (1 volume) (rmm) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
39 APPENDIX of materials by defendant in response to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (Attachments) (1 volume) (rmm) (Entered: 03/15/2004)
40 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1 Statement of additional facts [32-1] (rmm) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
41 RESPONSE by defendant to intervenors Local Rule 56.(B)(3)(B) Statement of additional facts (rmm) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
42 REPLY memorandum by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment [25-1]; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
43 REPLY Memorandum of law by plaintiffs in support of motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] and motion in limine [21-2] (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
44 MINUTE ORDER of 3/25/04 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon: Defendant's motion for summary judgment [25-1], plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [21-1], and motion in limine [21-2], are denied. the joint final pretrial order and agreed pattern jury instructions shall be presented by 04/22/04 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs' draft shall be submitted to defendant by 04/13/04. Trial is set for 05/27/04 at 9:00 a.m. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge's staff (cdy) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
45 MINUTE ORDER of 4/15/04 by Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon : Parties having submitted consents to proceed before a magistrate judge pretrial order submission on 4/22/04 and trial on 5/27/04 are vacated. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
46 CONSENT by EEOC to exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. (gcy) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
47 CONSENT by Stanley McCallum, George A Ervins, Ricky McNeal to exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. (gcy) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
48 CONSENT by Caterpillar Inc to exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. (gcy) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
49 REASSIGNMENT ORDER of 4/16/04 This case is reassigned to the Hon. Nan R. Nolan from the Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon pursuant to Local Rule 73.1 (For further detail see reverse of order). Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
50 MINUTE ORDER of 4/20/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Initial status hearing set for 5/6/04 at 9:00a.m. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858. Parties shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, room 1870, at least three business days before the initial status hearing. If the parties have recently prepared and filed an initial status report, the submission of the previously filed initial status report is sufficient. For further details see attached standing order.

7 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

05/03/2004 05/04/2004 05/07/2004
07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004
08/04/2004 08/04/2004

Mailed notice by judge's staff (lc) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
51 INITIAL STATUS REPORT of case referred for trial to Magistrate Judge Nolan by by plaintiff, intervenor plaintiffs and defendant (Attachments) (rmm) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 5/4/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing re-set to 9:00 5/7/04 . No notice (hmb) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
52 MINUTE ORDER of 5/7/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 7/27/2004 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant to provide plaintiffs with a pre-trial order draft by 6/23/2004. Joint pretrial order and motions in limine are due by 7/23/2004. Trial set for 10/4/2004. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
53 MOTION by defendant in limine to exclude evidence relating to a noose allegedly found at a plaintiff's home (rmm) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
54 MOTION by defendant in limine to exclude plaintiffs' opinion testimony and testimony lacking personal knowledge (rmm) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
55 MOTION by defendant in limine to exclude evidence of alleged supervisor harassment (rmm) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
56 MOTION by defendant in limine to exclude evidence related to Robert Autman, James Mack, Ronald Worley, and Terry Childress (rmm) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
57 MOTION by defendant in limine to exclude evidence related to persons' sexual orientation (rmm) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
58 MOTION by plaintiffs in limine to bar from evidence defendant's proposed Exhibit 8, as well as any testimony about its subject matter (rmm) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
59 MOTION by plaintiffs in limine that Caterpillar's Annual Financial Statement for 2003 be deemed authenticated ; (rmm) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
60 MOTION by plaintiffs in limine to limit testimony of Dan Sweeney, Tony Cole and Craig Herrick (rmm) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
61 MINUTE ORDER of 7/27/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 8/30/2004 at 10:00 a.m. Pretrial conference set for 9/15/2004 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiffs' and defendants' motions in limine are entered. The parties to file a brief to the Motions in Limine by 8/2/2004. EEOC to respond to the Motions in Limine by 8/16/04. Caterpillar Inc to file its response to the Motions in Limine by 8/27/04. All parties to file replies to the Motions in limine [57-1] [56-1] [55-1] [54-1] [53-1] [60-1] [59-1] [58-1] by 8/27/2004. Trial briefs due by 8/10/2004. Parties are directed to deliver two copies of the disputed exhibits to chambers by 8/27/2004. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
62 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion in limine to limit testimony of Dan Sweeney, Tony Cole and Craig Herrick [60-1] (rmm) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
63 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion in limine that Caterpillar's Annual Financial Statement for 2003 be deemed authenticated [59-1] (rmm)

8 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

08/04/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/30/2004

(Entered: 08/05/2004)
64 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion in limine to bar from evidence defendant's proposed Exhibit 8, as well as any testimony about its subject matter [58-1] (rmm) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
65 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence related to persons' sexual orientation [57-1] (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
66 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion in limine to exclude plaintiffs' opinion testimony and testimony lacking personal knowledge [54-1] (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
67 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to a noose allegedly found at a plaintiff's home [53-1]; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
68 TRIAL MEMORANDUM of law by plaintiffs (rmm) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
69 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of alleged supervisor harassment [55-1] (Attachments) (rmm) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
70 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence related to African American Employees Robert Autman, James Mack, Ronald Worley, and Terry Childress [56-1] (Attachments) (rmm) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
71 TRIAL MEMORANDUM of law by intervenor plaintiffs; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
72 MINUTE ORDER of 8/16/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : At the request of the parties, the court grants each side an extension until 8/16/2004 to file their trial briefs. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
73 REPLY by defendant in support of its to motion in limine to exclude opinion testimony and testimony lacking knowledge [54-1]; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
74 REPLY by defendant in support of its motion in limine to exclude evidence related to Robert Autman, James Mack, Ronald Worley, and Terry Childress [56-1]; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
75 REPLY by defendant in support of its motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to a noose allegedly found at a plaintiff's home [53-1] (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
76 REPLY by defendant in support of its motion in limine to exclude evidence related to persons' sexual orientation [57-1]; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
77 REPLY by defendant in support of its motion in limine to exclude evidence of alleged supervisor harassment [55-1]; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
78 MINUTE ORDER of 8/30/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held. The parties objections to jury instructions to be filed by 9/10/04. The parties to orally respond to the objections on 9/15/04. Pretrial conference set on 9/15/04 at 1:30 p.m. to stand. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 09/02/2004)

9 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

09/10/2004 09/10/2004 09/10/2004 09/10/2004 09/14/2004
09/15/2004 09/17/2004 09/20/2004
09/20/2004 09/22/2004 09/28/2004 09/29/2004 09/30/2004

79 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to defendant's jury instructions and verdict form (rmm) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
80 MEMO by plaintiffs in regard to defendant's proposed motions for directed verdict (Attachments) (rmm) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
81 ARGUMENTS by plaintiffs in support of plaintiffs' proposed exhibits to which defendant has objected (rmm) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
82 OBJECTIONS by defendant to plaintiffs' proposed jury instructions (rmm) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
83 MINUTE ORDER of 9/14/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to a noose allegedly found at a plaintiff's home [53-1] is granted; Defendant's motion in limine to exclude plaintiffs' opinion testimony and testimony lacking personal knowledge [54-1] is denied in part and reserved in part; Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of alleged supervisor harassment [55-1] is denied; Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence related to Robert Autman, James Mack, Ronald Worley, and Terry Childress [56-1] is denied; and Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence related to persons' sexual orientation [57-1] is granted. Plaintiffs', motions in limine to bar from evidence defendant's proposed Exhibit 8, as well as any testimony about its subject matter; that Caterpillar's Annual Financial Statement for 2003 be deemed authenticated; to limit testimony of Dan Sweeney, Tony Cole and Craig Herrick [58-1, 59-1, 60-1] are granted. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. Notices mailed by judge's staff (rmm) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 9/15/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Pretrial conference re-set to 2:15 9/17/04 Notice by phone. (hmb) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 9/17/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Pretrial conference held. no notice (hmb) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
84 MINUTE ORDER of 9/20/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Final pretrial conference held. Jury instruction conference set for 9/29/04 at 8:00 a.m. Plaintiff Rickey McNeal to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss claims raised for the first time in plaintiffs' trial brief by 09/22/04. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
87 MOTION by defendant to dismiss claims raised for the first time in plaintiffs' trial brief ; Notice. (gma) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
85 RESPONSE by plaintiff McNeal to defendant's motion to dismiss claims raised for the first time in plaintiffs' trial brief; Notice (cdy) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
86 MINUTE ORDER of 9/28/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: (Entered Final Pretrial Order.) No notice (air) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
88 MINUTE ORDER of 9/29/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Jury instruction conference held. Defendant's motion to dismiss claims raised for the first time in plaintiffs' trial brief [87-1] is entered and continued. No notice (gma) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
89 STIPULATION by plaintiff, defendant of dismissal; Notice. (gma) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

10 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

10/01/2004
10/04/2004 10/04/2004 10/04/2004 10/05/2004 10/06/2004 10/07/2004 10/08/2004 10/12/2004
10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/15/2004
11/04/2004

93 MINUTE ORDER of 10/1/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Defendant's motion to dismiss claims raised for the first time in plaintiffs' trial brief [87-1] is denied as moot given the stipulation of dismissal filed by plaintiff Rickey McNeal and Caterpillar. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
90 OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to defendant's proposal to submit to jury instructions from EEOC Legal Guidance (Attachments) (rmm) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
91 POSITIONS on certain trial matters not yet resolved by plaintiffs (rmm) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
92 MINUTE ORDER of 10/4/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Trial begins - Jury. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 10/5/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Jury trial held and continued to 10:00 10/6/04 . No notice (hmb) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 10/6/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Jury trial held and continued to 9:30 10/7/04 . No notice (hmb) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 10/7/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Jury trial held and continued to 9:30 10/8/04 . No notice (hmb) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 10/8/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Jury trial held and continued to 9:30 10/12/04 . No notice (hmb) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
94 MINUTE ORDER of 10/12/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Jury trial held and concluded. Jury deliberations began. Jury returns verdict in favor of defendant Caterpillar, Inc. Judgment is entered in favor of Caterpillar, Inc. and against plaintiffs EEOC, Stanley McCallum, George Ervins and Rickey McNeal. Defendant Caterpillar's oral Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law are denied as moot. Mailed notice (air) Modified on 10/14/2004 (Entered: 10/14/2004)
95 ENTERED JUDGMENT. (air) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
96 VERDICT for defendant against intervenor plaintiff Stanley McCallum. (air) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
97 JURY INSTRUCTIONS submitted. (air) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
98 JURY NOTES filed. (98-1 through 98-2) (air) Modified on 10/14/2004 (Entered: 10/14/2004)
99 STIPULATED FACTS. (air) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
100 MINUTE ORDER of 10/15/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Each party is responsible for maintaining any exhibits which were admitted at trial. Parties need to determine who will take possession of the joint exhibits. Original exhibits should be picked up from Judge Nolan's chambers, room 1870. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
101 BILL OF COSTS submitted by Caterpillar (Attachments); Notice. (gcy) Modified on 11/08/2004 (Entered: 11/08/2004)

11 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?106800808453929-L_35...

11/05/2004 11/10/2004 11/12/2004 11/17/2004 11/19/2004
12/01/2004 02/07/2005 02/07/2005 02/09/2005 03/18/2005

102 MINUTE ORDER of 11/5/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Any objection to defendant Caterpillar's Bill of Costs are due by11/15/04. Caterpillar may reply by 11/22/04. Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
103 NOTICE OF APPEAL by intervenors plaintiff Stanley McCallum, George A Ervins, and Ricky McNeal motion minute order [94-2], judgment entered [95-1], verdict [96-1] ( Fee Paid) (dj) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal [103-1] . Mailed notice to all counsel. (dj) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
104 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal [103-1] USCA 04-3920 (gcy) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
105 MINUTE ORDER of 11/19/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : No objections having been filed by the 11/15/04 deadline, the Clerk of the Court is directed to tax costs in the amount of $4,093.99 against the plaintiff EEOC. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal no. 04-3920 consisting of two volumes of pleadings, three loose documents re: appeal [103-1]. Mailed notice to all counsel. (cdh) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
106 MANDATE of USCA dated 2/4/2005 regarding notice of appeal103 ; USCA No. 04-3920. It is ordered that this cause is dismissed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
107 LETTER from the USCA retaining the record on appeal in USCA no. 04-3920 (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
108 LETTER from the Seventh Circuit returning the record on appeal in USCA no. 04-3920 consisting of 2 volumes of pleadings and 3 volumes of loose pleadings. (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
109 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 9/17/2004; Before the Honorable Nan R. Nolan (rmm, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/24/2007 14:57:04

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:03-cv-05637

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

0.56

12 of 12

5/24/2007 2:55 PM

 
 EEOC Files Two Suits Against Caterpillar for Harassment at Illinois Faci...

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 13, 2003

CONTACT:

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-13b-03.html
Lauren Dreilinger EEOC Trial Attorney (312) 353-7303 Gordon Waldron EEOC Trial Attorney (312) 353-7525 John C. Hendrickson EEOC Regional Attorney (312) 353-8551 TTY: (312) 353-2421

EEOC Files Two Suits Against Caterpillar for Harassment at Illinois Facilities

Pictured are Charging Party Karon Lambert (left) and EEOC Chicago Trial Attorney Lauren Dreilinger (right). Ms. Lambert's sexual harassment case resulted in EEOC's litigation against Caterpillar's Aurora facility.
Federal Agency Challenges Racial and Sexual Harassment at Joliet and Aurora Plants
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today filed two employment discrimination lawsuits in federal court in Chicago against Caterpillar, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the suits, the EEOC separately alleges racial and sexual harassment at Caterpillar's facilities in Joliet and Aurora, Illinois, respectively.
Caterpillar is an international Fortune 100 company and the manufacturer of the well-known yellow Caterpillar bulldozers, earthmovers, trucks and other heavy construction equipment, with corporate headquarters and its principal manufacturing and assembly facility in Peoria, Illinois. Caterpillar's facility in Joliet has over 1,000 employees and there are over 2,000 employees at Aurora.
In the case involving Caterpillar's Joliet facility, the EEOC maintains that during 2000 and 2001 Caterpillar permitted the racial harassment of at least three African American employees (George Ervins, Stanley McCallum and Rickey McNeal) who worked in "Building C" of that facility. EEOC said that its administrative investigation which preceded the suit showed that, among other things, certain white employees made a practice of whistling at the African American employees as if they were dogs, and that management refused to act on complaints about the practice.
One of the Joliet employees who filed Charges with the Commission, Stanley McCallum, said, "Some of my co-workers and a supervisor repeatedly whistled at me like you would whistle at a dog. I thought it was really racially insulting and harassing. I was disappointed that, even after I complained about it, Caterpillar didn't discipline the harassers."
The EEOC said that, among the excuses Caterpillar management offered for the whistling at Black employees, was that one of the employees involved "had a sinus problem."

1 of 2

5/24/2007 3:57 PM

EEOC Files Two Suits Against Caterpillar for Harassment at Illinois Faci...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-13b-03.html

In the case involving the Aurora facility, EEOC alleges that a supervisor sexually harassed Safety Industrial Hygiene Supervisor Karon Lambert ("Lambert") and a class of women. EEOC also contends that Caterpillar retaliated against Lambert and other women for opposing the harassment. EEOC's investigation revealed that the sexual harassment at Aurora involved both sexually offensive propositions and comments and unwelcome inappropriate physical touching. According to EEOC, when women complained about the harassment they were fired.
"It's bad enough," Charging Party Lambert said, "that I and other women has to experience constant sexual harassment from our supervisor, but being fired for standing up for ourselves was just about as bad."
John Hendrickson, EEOC's Regional Attorney in Chicago, said, "The two suits we have filed today are evidence that harassment may remain a serious problem even for the world's premier employers – especially when they fail to act on complaints received. In these cases, some of the excuses given by management for not taking corrective action were virtually as insulting as the original harassment and compounded the problem, as did the company's rush to retaliate."
Hendrickson continued, "Employer's should learn from both of these cases that how they react after learning of claims or harassment may overshadow the harassment itself and make them liable for damages in a higher order of magnitude. Suffice it to say, Caterpillar did not do itself any favors in either of these situations."
Both EEOC lawsuits, which were filed after the agency's efforts to voluntarily conciliate the matters with Caterpillar proved futile, seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctions barring future discrimination and requiring Caterpillar to implement measures to prevent recurrences. Both are captioned EEOC v. Caterpillar, Inc. The Joliet case has been designated N.D. Illinois No. 03-C-5637, and the Aurora case has been designated N.D. Illinois No. 03-C-5636.
EEOC Chicago District Director John P. Rowe said, "These are cases in which Caterpillar was made aware that it had a problem, but failed to seize the opportunity to take prompt and effective action. Now EEOC and, ultimately, a judge and jury will be doing for the company what it could have done for itself. That these harassment cases may not involve conduct as widespread and outrageous as that in some other cases brought by EEOC, makes it all the more remarkable that Caterpillar let the problems fester until litigation became inevitable." Rowe added, "We trust that other employers will learn from this scenario that conscientious compliance efforts pay dividends and that there is no substitute for acting quickly and effectively whenever harassment crops up."
In addition to enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits gender-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on August 13, 2003.

Return to Home Page

2 of 2

5/24/2007 3:57 PM