Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 1 Filed 05/28/03 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

flflCKfrrj

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff,
V.

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

930
UÙGEZAGEL

2 9 ¿003

Walsh Construction Company of Illinois,

)

COMPLAINT

Defendant

) )

YA :
JURY TRIAL DEMANP

"J3 LKATh JtGE DoE.

rCcoJ

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under 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. § 1981 a, to correct unlawftil employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Janice Lenoir who was adversely affected by such practices.
Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), contends Defendant, Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, has violated Title VII by
subjecting Janice Lenoir, because of her sex, to a hostile and abusive work environment
and by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the harassment after

the Defendant became aware of it.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant tò 28 U.S.C. § 451, 1331,

i

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 1 Filed 05/28/03 Page 2 of 7
1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section
706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)Xl) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981a.
The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division. PARTIES
Plaintiff; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the 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 Section 706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5fXl) and (3).
At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Illinois and has continuously had at least fifleen (15) employees.
At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged
in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h). STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit Janice Lenoir filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
During 2001, Defendant has violated Section 703(a)(1)of Title VII, 42
2
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 1 Filed 05/28/03 Page 3 of 7
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by subjecting Janice Lenoir to sexual harassment and by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the harassment after the Defendant became aware of the illegal behavior.
The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven above has been to deprive Janice Lenoir of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her sex.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were intentional.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
Janice Lenoir. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors,
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex;
Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects
of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
Order Defendant to make whole Janice Lenoir by providing compensation for pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above;
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 1 Filed 05/28/03 Page 4 of 7

Order Defendant to make whole Janice Lenoir by providing compensation

for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering,

inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;

Order Defendant to pay Janice Lenoir punitive damages for its malicious

andlor reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;

F, Order Defendant and its successors to provide training to its officers,

managers and employees regarding sexual harassment in the workplace;

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

public interest; and

Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

NICHOLAS INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

4
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 1 Filed 05/28/03 Page 5 of 7
cm

# Hend
onal Attc'ey

r r

Gregory Go anour Supervisory Trial Attorney

Gordon Waldron Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7525

D:\Myfiles\Walsh\Complaint.wpd

s
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Civil Cover Sheet

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 1 Filed 05/28/03 Page 6 of 7
http://www,jJn4uscourts.gov/PUBLJC/Forms/autojs44.cfm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Civil Cover Sheet OSC 3601

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in

September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The

information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings qrqtlrp ers as required

by law. This form is authorized for use only in the Northern District of Illinois.

UUIJbt GEL

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

County of Residence:

Plaintiffs Atty:

Gordon G. Waidron U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661
(3 12) 353-7525

Defendant(s):Walsh Construction C0mpLkÇCKETED

Illinois County of

MAY 2 9 2063

Defendants Atty:

J(ThGE

--'C: E'

Basis of Jurisdiction:

1. U.S. Gov't Plaintiff

Citizenship of Principal
Parties (Diversity Cases Only) Plaintiff:- N/A
Defendant:- N/A

Origin:

1. Original Proceeding

Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§2000 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 sex.

Requested in Complaint

Class Action: No

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

jL ¿? This case IS NOT a refihing of a previously dismissed case.

Signature:

7/o

Hr

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

I of2

5/27/03 ¡1:14 AM

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 1 Filed 05/28/03 Page 7 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ll&WETED

In the Matter of

EASTERN DIVISION

2 9 2003

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

y.

Plaintiff,

Walsh Construction Company of Illinois,

Defendant.

oc9 Case Number:

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTOR BY S) FOR:

01

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff

JUDOC ZMÉL

(A)

%TL hO" SIGNATURE

tA!

NAME
Gordon G. Waidron

FIRM Equal Employment Oppotunity Commission

wnr« SIGNATURE

MAGISTRAT-F PJDC-
(E)

At4r-\j G- mg NAME Gregory M. Gochanour Y'

-fl

FIRM Equal Employment OppSityrniflssion

500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2800

CITY/STATE/ZIP Chicago, Illinois 60661

TELEPHONE NIMBER
(312) 353-7525

FAX NUMBER
(312) 353-8555

E-MAIL ADDRESS Gordon.Waldroneeoc.gov

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ARDCNo. 02920646

STREETADORESS 500 W. Madison &et,uiteÍ800

CITY/STATE/ZIP
Chicago, Illinois ®661

TELEPHONE NIMBER
(312) 886-9124

tA)(NIMBER
(312) 353-8555

E-MAIL ADDRESS Gregory.Gochanoureeoc.gov

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ABDCNo. 06210804

MEMBEROFTRIALBAR?

YES

NO

MEMBEROFTRIALBAR?

YES

NO

TRIAL ATTORNEY?
r

YES

NO

TRIAL ATTORNEY? DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES

NO

YES

NO

(D)

SIGNØ7,
NAVE
o C. kP'ndrickson"

SIGNATURE NAME

PIRI1 EquI Employment Opportunity Commission

STREE - OGRESS
soo W. Madison Street, Suite 2800

CITY/STATE/ZIP
Chicago, Illinois 60661

TELEPHONENIMBER
(312)353-8551

FAXNUMBRR
(312)353-8555

E-MAIL ADDRESS John.Hendricksoneeoc.gov

IOENIIEICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ABDCNo. 01187589

STREET ADORESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

TELEPHONENIMBER

I FAXNUMBER

E-MAIL ADDRESS

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBEROFTRIALBAR?

YES

4

NO

MEMBEROFTRIALBAR?

YES

NO

TRIALATTORNEY?

YES

NO

TRIALATFORNEY?

YES

D NO

OES[ONATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES

D

NO

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES

NO

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION P1DF-Compressor

 
 Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 8 Filed 08/26/03 Page 1 of 8 e

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORThERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

L

Plaintiff,

LD

V.
WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, an illinois Corporation,
Defendant, JANICE LENOIR,
Plaintiff-Intervenor

Case No.: 03 C 3601

/

Judge: James B. Zagel

V.
WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, an illinois Corporation,
Defendant,
&LbII2Ej1COMPLAINT OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
Now comes the Plaintiff, Janice Lcnoir by her attorneys, Mark D. DeBofsky and Daley
DeBofsky & Bryant, and complaining against the Defendant, Walsh Construction Company of
illinois, an illinois corporation, stating: Nature ofAction
1. This is a claim for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against on account of her sex; and in particular, that the Defendant subjected her to sexual harassment defined as a violation of section 703 of the Civil Rights Act pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. Plaintiffalso claims that
Defendant failed to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the harassment after the

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 8 Filed 08/26/03 Page 2 of 8
-e
Defendant became aware of the illegal behavior; and that she was subjected to retaliation on account of her complaints of sexual harassment. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant
intentionally and deliberately subjected her to extreme and outrageous severe mental and
emotional distress. Plaintiffseeks damages, inclusive of punitive damages pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as well as recovery of her attorneys' fees and costs.
Jurisdiction and Venue The court's jurisdiction derives from Title Vil of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Plaintiff has filed timely charges of discrimination with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the illinois Department of Human Rights and exhausted administrative remedies prior to the initiation ofthis action. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(fX3). Jurisdiction is also
founded upon 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) as well as 28 u.s.c. §* 1331 and 1343(a)(4).
Defendant is located within this judicial district, and all of the events.giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district. Venue is therefore proper in this judicial district in accordance
with28U.S.Ci 1291.
The Parties The Plaintiff, JANICE LENOIR ("Ms. Lenoir"), is a female. At ail times relevant hereto, she
was a resident of Chicago, illinois. From December, 2000 until January, 2002 , Ms. Lenoir was employed by Walsh Construction Company of Illinois or a subsidiary thereof, as a laborer.
S. Defendant, WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, an Illinois corporation
("Walsh"), is engaged in construction work in the City of Chicago, illinois. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of illinois and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. Therefore, at all times relevant hereto,
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 8 Filed 08/26/03 Page 3 of 8

Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within

the meaning of section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19M, 42 U.s.c.

§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

Statement of Facts

Ms. Lenoir was employed by Walsh or a subsidiary thereof from December of 2000 until

January of 2002. Beginning on February 15, 2001 and continuing until at least October 25,

2001, on various and numerous occasions, Manuel Lemus ("Mr. Lemus"), a foreman employed

by Walsh, sexually harassed Ms. Lenoir by making sexually graphic suggestions and remarks, by

offensive physical contact, and by otherwise engaging in conduct that created a sexually hostile

environment offensive to the Plaintiff and to any reasonable woman or person. In addition

thereto, Lemus either had actual or apparent authority to determine certain terms and conditions
of plaintifFs employment; and he offered to condition better terms and conditions of

employment in exchange for sexual favors.

Beginning February 15, 2001, the following occuned:

On February 15, 2001, Mr. Lemus initiated conversation with plaintiffabout his

wife, stating that he did not have a good sex life with his wife, and asking Ms Lenoir if she had

any sexual problems with her boyfriend. When Ms. Lenoir explained that she and her boyfriend

did not have sexual problems, Mr. Lemus remarked, "I wish I had met you before ¡ met my

wife."

The next day, Mr. Lemus approached the Plaintiff and asked if she was ready to

take care of him.

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 8 Filed 08/26/03 Page 4 of 8
e) On February 26, 2001, Mr. Lemus approached the Plaintiff who was sitting in the office writing out reports and proceeded to rub his penis on her shoulder (the "first physical contact").
On March 2,2001, Mr. Lemus called Ms. Lenoir in her home at approximately
7:30 p m and asked if he could come over to have sex. Ms. Lenoir said "no" and hung up the
phone. Mr. Lemus proceeded to call back twice (the "March 2 phone incidents"). On September 24,2001, when Ms. Lenoir returned from evening classes to her
car parked on the work site after work hours, she found Mr. Lemus waiting by the car. She inimediately entered her vehicle and left without speaking to him (the "September 24th incident").
t) On October 23, 2001, Mr. Lemus hit Ms. Lenoir's buttocks from behind (the "second physical contact"). A co-worker, Jerome Johnson, told Ms. Lenoir that Mr. Lemus was "swinging" at her buttocks all the time.
g) On October 24,2001, Mr. Lemus showed Ms. Lenoir a rubber condom and told her to "come on" (the "October 24th condom incident").
Mr. Lemus' comments and actions were not solicited or invited by Ms. Lenoir, were not
welcome, and were of a physically and emotionally offensive nature. When Mr. Lemus made comments or advances of a sexual nature to Ms. Lenoir, she
demanded that he cease; and when Mr. Lemus did not cease his conduct Ms. Lenoir complained of Mr. Lemus' conduct to her supervisors. In particular, the following occurred:
a) On March 5,2001, after the March 2" phone incident, Ms. Lenoir reported Mr.
Lemus' actions to Xavier Watkins, the assistant superintendent. The following day, Michael
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 8 Filed 08/26/03 Page 5 of 8
Coghlin, the superintendent, approached Ms. Lenoir and assured her that such harassment would not happen again.
b) On September 25,2001, after the September 24th car incident, Ms. Lenoir again reported Mr. Lemus' actions to Watkins. However, there was no response to her complaints.
e) On October 25, 2001, following the October 24th condom incident, Ms. Lenoir reported Mr. Lemus' behavior to Xavier, after which, Mr. Lemus told the Plaintiff, "You told
Xavier, you know people don't like me and they are trying to get rid of me. You know they are going to get rid of me and you."
During this period, Ms. Lenoir was subject to other harassment and retaliation from another
employee ofWalsh in relation to her reporting ofMr. Lemus' inappropriate behavior. On
September 3, 2001, John D. (last name unknown) approached Ms. Lenoir and stated, "I always
told them that you was a worthless piece of shit"
When Ms. Lenoir's supervisors failed to take adequate action to prevent Mr. Lemus' further harassment, on November 14,2001, Ms. Lenoir filed a charge of discrimination based on sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Ms. Lenoir suffered severe emotional distress, and she has been unable to work on account of her condition since approximately
January 2002. Count I: Sexual Harassment/Title VII
Plaintiffre-alleges paragraphs I through 12 ofthe general allegations as ofCount I ofthis
complaint, and by that reference incorporates those allegations herein. The foregoing conduct by Walsh constitutes discrimination against the Plaintiff in the ternis
and conditions of her employment on account of her sex in violation ofTille VII of the Civil
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 8 Filed 08/26/03 Page 6 of 8 e'
Rights Act of 1964. In addition thereto, defendant's refûsal to remediate the actions of Lemus and others was malicious and/or reckless in its disregard for plaintiffs civil rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in her favor and against the Defendant and also requests the following relief
That the Plaintiff be made whole as to all salary, benefits, and seniority status that she would have earned but for the civil rights violation committed against her by Defendant;
That Defendant clear from Plaintiffs personnel records all references to the filing of a charge of discrimination as well as this action, and the subsequent disposition thereof
That Defendant cease and desist from discriminating on the basis of sex in its
employment practices; That Defendant be ordered to pay to Plaintiff a reasonable sum that will compensate
her for her physical and emotional injuries suffered as a result of Defendant's conduct;
That the Defendant be ordered to pay to Plaintiff punitive damages in the maximum sum allowable under the Civil Rights Act of 1991;
That Plaintiff receive such further relief as may be necessary to make Plaintiff whole, and in addition thereto that Plaintiff recover her costs and attorneys' fees in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
Count II: Retaliation Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 12 of the general allegations as of Count II of this complaint, and by that reference incorporates those allegations herein The foregoing conduct by Walsh, through its agents and employees, constitutes a retaliation by the Defendant which has denied her opportunities for employment on the basis of her having complained of discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19M.
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 8 Filed 08/26/03 Page 7 of 8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in her favor and against the Defendant and also requests the following relief:
That the Plaintiff be made whole as to all salary, benefits, and seniority status that she would have earned but for the civil Tights violation committed against her by Defendant;
That Defendant clear from Plaintiffs personnel records all references to the filing of a charge of discrimination as well as this action, and the subsequent disposition thereof;
That Defendant ceases and desists from discriminating on the basis ofsex in its
employment practices; That Defendant be ordered to pay to Plaintiff a reasonable sum that will compensate
her for her physical and emotional injuries suffered as a result ofDefendant's conduct; That the Defendant be ordered to pay to Plaintiff punitive damages in the maximum
sum allowable under the Civil Rights Act of 1991;
That Plaintiff receive such further relief as may be necessary to make Plaintiff whole, and in addition thereto that Plaintiff recover her costs and attorneys' fees in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
Count HI: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 17. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 12 of the general allegations as of Count ifi of this
complaint, and by that reference incorporates those allegations herein. Additional JurisdictionalAllegation
18. In addition to the basis of the Court's jurisdiction as set forth above, this Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 since the allegations
relating to Count III arise out of the same course of conduct as described in Counts I and H. Claimfor Relief
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 8 Filed 08/26/03 Page 8 of 8
The foregoing described pervasive and repeated conduct on the part of the
Defendant, through its agents and employees, was committed intentionally and deliberately and was extreme and outrageous.
The foregoing described conduct by the Defendant was conduct which the Defendant either knew or should have known was likely to cause emotional distress to the Plaintiff; and such conduct was calculated by the Defendant to inflict severe emotional distress and to cause fear and intimidation in the Plaintiff.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered severe mental
shock, fright and anxiety.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an award of damages sufficient to compensate her for
the severe emotional distress inflicted by Defendant and in addition thereto, Plaintiffprays for an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the Defendant and to deter it from committing such acts again in the Mure, as well as any and all other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled.
July Demand
Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

Mark D. DeBofsky Daley, Deßofsky & Bryant 1 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3800 Chicago, illinois 60602 (312) 372-5200 FAX (312) 372-2778

One of the attorneys for plaintiff

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

 
 Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and
JANICE LENOIR,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF ILLINOIS and WALSH/II IN ONE JOINT VENTURE ,
Defendants.

No. 03 C 3601 Judge James B. Zagel

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed suit against Walsh Construction Company of Illinois and Walsh/II In One Joint Venture (“Defendants”) alleging sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. Janice Lenoir (“Lenoir”) subsequently intervened. Together, the EEOC and Lenoir allege that Lenoir’s supervisor, Manuel Lemus, subjected her to sexual harassment and created a hostile working environment. Lenoir also asserts a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants seek summary judgment of the claims on the grounds that Lemus’s conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable, that Lenoir’s complaints about the harassment were promptly and properly addressed, and that Lenoir failed to comply with

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 14
Defendant’s sexual harassment policy when reporting Lemus’s behavior. Both the EEOC and Lenoir (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) object to summary judgment. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate 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); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). In determining whether any genuine issue of material fact exists, all facts must be construed in the light most favorable to Lenoir and all reasonable and justifiable inferences drawn in her favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). A material fact is genuinely in dispute when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248. Factual Background
Lenoir was employed by Defendants from November 2000 until January 2002 as a construction laborer at Chicago’s Millennium Park. When Lenoir began working for Defendants, Mike Coghlan (“Coghlan”) was the project superintendent. Xavier Watkins (“Watkins”) was a carpenters’ foreman. Manuel Lemus (“Lemus”) began working at the site in January 2001 and became Lenoir’s immediate supervisor. Lemus was a laborer’s foreman and supervised Lenoir. Although Watkins did not supervise Lemus, Lenoir believed that Watkins was senior to Lemus in the chain of command because Watkins provided Lemus with work assignments.
Lenoir alleges that Lemus sexually harassed her on multiple occasions between February 15, 2001 and approximately October 25, 2001. On February 15, 2001, Lemus approached Lenoir
2

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 14
and told her that he and his wife did not have a good sex life, and that he wished he had met Lenoir before he met his wife. He then asked whether Lenoir and her boyfriend had a good sex life. The following day Lemus asked Lenoir is she would “take care of him,” which Lenoir interpreted as a request for sexual favors.
On February 26, 2001, Lemus walked up behind Lenoir while she was seated in an office doing paperwork and rubbed his penis on her shoulder. Lenoir jumped up and ran out of the office. Lenoir reported this incident to Watkins the next time she saw him at the work site; she may also have informed him of Lemus’s comments on February 15 and 16.1 Watkins assured Lenoir that he would “get to the bottom of this.”
Less than a week later, on March 2, 2001, Lemus phoned Lenoir and asked her if he could come over to her home to have sex with her. Lenoir refused and hung up the phone. Lemus phoned Lenoir several times that night asking for sex. On March 5, 2001, Lenoir told Watkins about the phone calls. Lenoir also discussed these incidents with Jerome Johnson, a fellow laborer at the job site who was also the union steward. Johnson told Lenoir to follow the “proper channels” and report Lemus’s conduct to Watkins.
Watkins told Lenoir that he would report Lemus’s conduct to Coghlan, and he did so on March 6, 2001. Watkins later told Lenoir that he and Coghlan spoke with Lemus about Lenoir’s allegations. At some point, Coghlan approached Lenoir, told her that he had been informed of Lemus’s conduct, and assured her that it would never happen again. Lenoir believes, but is not
1It is undisputed that at one point in her deposition Lenoir stated that she did not report Lemus’s comments about his wife and his sex life to Watkins. However, in that same deposition she later testified that she told Watkins about “everything” Lemus had said and done.
3

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 4 of 14
sure, that Coghlan approached her after Lemus’s March 2 telephone calls.2 Lenoir alleges that Coghlan instructed her to report any further problems to Watkins. During the period that Coghlan remained at the site where both Lenoir and Lemus worked, Lenoir experienced no further incidents of harassment; she testified that at the time, she was satisfied with the resolution of these incidents, as the harassment appeared to have ended.
In September, 2001, Coghlan left the Millennium Park work site and was replaced by Greg Voegtle (“Voegtle”). Later in that same month, Lemus approached Lenoir at lunchtime and asked her why she was parking her car at the job site after hours. Lenoir informed Lemus that she was attending school in the evening and leaving her car on-site during her classes.3 That evening, when Lenoir returned to the site to get her car, she saw Lemus waiting in his car. When she realized Lemus was flashing his car lights, she got into her car and left. A few days later Lenoir again left her car at work after hours. When she returned, her car was locked in; the job site was locked for the night. Lenoir assumes that Lemus locked up her car. She did not report these incidents to anyone, including Watkins, though she did ask Lemus why he locked her car in the job site.
In October 2001, Lemus and Lenoir were working together when Lemus twice hit Lenoir on the buttocks. Lenoir yelled at Lemus and moved to the other side of the machine they were moving. The very next day Lemus showed Lenoir a condom and said “come on.” Lenoir
2Coghlan believes that he met with both Lenoir and Lemus and demanded that the harassment cease, but Lenoir insists that she never attended a meeting where Lemus was present and his harassment was discussed.
3Lenoir admits that Lemus, as a project foreman, was entitled to ask Lenoir why she was parking her car at the work site after hours.
4

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 5 of 14
reported both incidents to Watkins on October 25, 2001, the day after Lemus showed the condom to Lenoir. Watkins again conveyed Lenoir’s complaints to Coghlan, but not to Voegtle. Watkins states that after this incident, he was present for a meeting with Lemus and Coghlan in which Coghlan raised his voice, listed the complaints Lenoir had made and asked Lemus what he was doing. Watkins left the meeting before it ended and does not know whether Lemus was threatened with discipline or termination. Hostile Work Environment
Defendants first seek dismissal on the grounds that Lenoir failed to establish that she was subject to a hostile working environment. To sustain her claim, Lenoir must establish that she was subject to harassment because of her sex, that the harassment was “so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of [her] employment and create an abusive working environment.” HiltDyson v. City of Chicago, 282 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A hostile work environment is “both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998) (citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22 (1993)). Factors influencing whether harassment is objectively offensive include the “frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Id. at 787-88 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 23).4
4Defendants suggest an even stronger standard, arguing that a workplace environment must be “hellish” in order to be hostile. See Baskerville v. Culligan Int’l Co., 50 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 1995); Rogers v. City of Chicago, 320 F.3d 748, 752 (7th Cir. 2003). However, Baskerville
5

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 6 of 14
No bright-line test distinguishes what is “merely vulgar and mildly offensive from the deeply offensive and sexually harassing.” Baskerville v. Culligan Int’l, 50 F.3d 428, 431 (7th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted). However, it is important to distinguish “sexual assaults; other physical contact, whether amorous or hostile . . . uninvited sexual solicitations; intimidating words or acts; obscene language or gestures; pornographic pictures” from “the occasional vulgar banter, tinged with sexual innuendo, of coarse or boorish workers.” Id. at 430 (citations omitted). See also Pryor v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, 212 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 2000) (supervisor’s inquiries into subordinate’s purchase of lingerie, request to see photos of subordinate in lingerie, and request that subordinate look at photos of women in bondage not sufficient for sexual harassment claim). In Baskerville, comments of a sexual nature failed to create a hostile work environment when the supervisor never touched the plaintiff and did not invite her, explicitly or implicitly, to have sex with him or date him. Id. at 431. Conversely, “direct contact with an intimate body part constitutes one of the most severe forms of sexual harassment.” Worth v. Tyer, 276 F.3d 249, 268 (7th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
Considered as a whole, Lemus’s conduct was objectively offensive. Lemus progressed from requests for sex, both at work and in telephone calls to Lenoir’s home, to explicitly sexual physical contact with Lenoir’s body on two distinct occasions. Lemus’s acts of rubbing his penis against Lenoir and his multiple slaps to her rear-end, in combination with his repeated requests for sex, satisfy the test for objectively offensive conduct. Cf. Adusumilli v. City of Chicago, 164
and Rogers did not set a new standard for objectively offensive working environment. Rather, the term “hellish” was used to distinguish actionable conduct from mere vulgarity, see 50 F.3d at 430 (“[t]he concept of sexual harassment is designed to protect working women from the kind of male attentions that can make the workplace hellish for women) (emphasis added), and to emphasize that some conduct does not violate Title VII, see 320 F.3d at 748.
6

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 7 of 14
F.3d 353, 362 (7th Cir. 1998) (“the unwanted touching of Adusumilli’s buttocks, took the relatively mild form of a poke and occurred only once”) (emphasis added). Lenoir has also demonstrated their subjective offensiveness; she complained about these acts to a supervisor who she believed was in a position to resolve her complaints.5
Defendants nevertheless ask me to consider Lemus’s conduct as falling into two distinct periods, each of which must be considered on their own, rather than in their entirety. Defendants also argue that they cannot be liable for Lemus’s conduct in February and March because after Lenoir complained, the matter was addressed by the company and handled to Lenoir’s admitted satisfaction. Construed in the light most favorable to Lenoir, the facts demonstrate that Lemus suspended his harassment after he was confronted by Coghlan. However, at roughly the same time that Coghlan moved to a different job site, his harassment of Lenoir began anew. Once the threat–and so far as the record establishes, the only possible threat–of punishment disappeared, Lemus resumed his harassment.
The six-month gap between the incidents of harassment reflects Defendants’ stop-gap measure to end the harassment; i.e., whatever sanctions Coghlan threatened to impose should Lemus engage in another act of harassment. Lenoir’s complaints were only handled to her satisfaction for the time Coghlan remained the project manager at her job site; as soon as he left,
5Defendants imply that Lenoir’s complaints were too delayed in time to reflect her subjective belief that she was subject to offensive harassment. For example, they note that Lenoir did not complain of Lemus’s multiple (implied and actual) requests for sex (on February 15 and 16) until February 26, the day after Lemus rubbed his penis against her. Defendants cite no authority holding that an employee must complain of harassment on the very day it occurs to demonstrate the subjective offensiveness of the conduct. In this case, Lenoir immediately jumped up and ran out of the office where she was completing paperwork after Lemus rubbed against her, and complained to Watkins the “next time” she saw him. Therefore, she appears to have registered her dissatisfaction with Lemus’s requests for sex just 10 days after his comments.
7

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 8 of 14
the harassment resumed and her “satisfaction” with the outcome of whatever discipline occurred in February/March disappeared. Because the alleged harasser was the same during both periods and because the conduct was similar during both periods (physical contact of a sexual nature, and implicit and explicit requests for sex) I am unwilling to consider the acts of harassment separately. 6
Defendants also argue that Lenoir’s failure to follow their sexual harassment reporting policy provides an affirmative defense under the Faragher/Ellerth line of cases. See Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). While an employer is strictly liable for a supervisor’s harassing conduct, the employer’s liability is subject to an affirmative defense when no tangible employment action is taken. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765. In such a case, the employer avoids liability by showing: “(a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.” Id. Defendants contend that there are no material factual disputes with respect to either element of the affirmative defense.
I find, however, that Lenoir raised issues of fact with respect to both elements of the Faragher/Ellerth defense. First, Lenoir alleges that Lemus’s harassment resumed at approximately the same time as Coghlan’s departure from their work site. Defendants provided no evidence of the actual discipline imposed on Lemus after Lenoir’s February/March allegations
6Defendants argue, correctly, that the EEOC and Lenoir failed to present any evidence that the incident in which Lemus allegedly locked Lenoir’s car after-hours was based on her sex. Therefore, I do not address Lenoir’s complaints about losing access to her car when considering whether there is sufficient evidence for the hostile work environment claim to survive Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
8

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 9 of 14
of harassment; absent such facts, I cannot determine that Defendants exercised “reasonable care” to stop Lemus’s behavior. Moreover, the facts suggest that Lemus felt free to resume his harassment once Coghlan was no longer in a position to monitor his behavior.
Defendants nonetheless insist that Coghlan’s response was effective and appropriate, even though, as I address shortly, they simultaneously object to Lenoir’s decision to report the harassment to Coghlan through Watkins. Although Coghlan testified that he instructed Lemus to cease all harassment of Lenoir, Defendants provided no evidence that any written documentation was made of Lenoir’s complaint such that future allegations of harassment (after Coghlan’s departure) could be recognized as repeat accusations rather than first-time offenses. Nor is there any evidence that Coghlan followed Defendants’ policy by reporting the allegations of harassment to Human Resources Director Ceska (“Ceska”) or Vice President May (“May”), or created a record of the alleged harassment and his response.
The idea that Coghlan’s response was effective because Lemus’s harassment ceased until Coghlan moved to a different job site rings hollow. An employer’s response to allegations of harassment is unreasonable if it is unduly delayed or “not reasonably likely to prevent the misconduct from recurring.” Saxton v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 10 F.3d 526, 535 (7th Cir. 1993). Furthermore,
[a]n employer’s response to alleged instances of employee harassment must be reasonably calculated to prevent further harassment under the particular facts and circumstances of the case at the time the allegations are made. We agree . . . that a court should not focus solely upon whether the remedial activity ultimately succeeded, but instead should determine whether the employer’s total response was reasonable under the circumstances as then existed.
9

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 10 of 14
Brooms v. Regal Tube Co., 881 F.2d 412, 421 (7th Cir. 1989). In this case, the only evidence
regarding Defendants’ response is Coghlan’s testimony that he spoke with Lemus after Lenoir’s
complaints reached him. However, his testimony did not reveal the substance of his conversation
with Lemus and what consequences, if any, might befall Lemus should the harassment continue.
Moreover, there is no evidence he documented the allegations of harassment or forwarded
Lenoir’s complaints to anyone with responsibility for allegations of harassment. Cf. McPherson
v. City of Waukegan, 379 F.3d 430, 440 (7th Cir. 2004) (company took immediate, remedial
action in response to complaint of harassment); and Peinado v. Norwegian Am. Hosp., Inc., No.
99 C 3233, 2001 WL 726993, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 28, 2001) (employer’s response was effective and prompt).7 In sum, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants’ response to
Lenoir’s complaints of harassment was reasonable, notwithstanding Lenoir’s assessment that, at
a particular moment in time, she was satisfied with the company’s response.
Second, Lenoir’s failure to complain to Ceska and May in late 2001 was not unreasonable
given Coghlan’s and Watkin’s earlier instructions to report any further incidents of harassment to them.8 Lenoir admits that she received a copy of Defendants’ sexual harassment policy, which
7In Peinado, the court held that the defendant company responded effectively and promptly when the complaining employee’s supervisor scheduled a meeting with the Human Resources director the day after receiving the complaint, after which the company offered the plaintiff an opportunity to change her work location and suspended the alleged harasser for five weeks. 2001 WL 726993, at *9-10.
8On the one hand, Defendants seek dismissal of Lenoir’s claims because she failed to follow textbook procedure in reporting Lemus’s acts of harassment. On the other, Defendants argue that Lenoir’s complaints to Watkins after the February/March harassment resulted in a “reasonable response” from the company exculpating it from any liability for Lemus’s subsequent behavior, even though there is no evidence Coghlan followed the procedure to which Defendants seek to hold Lenoir. If Defendants’ response to Lenoir’s spring 2001 allegations of harassment was reasonable, it is difficult to understand (on the facts before me) why Lenoir’s subsequent complaints to Watkins would be unreasonable.
10

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 11 of 14
directed employees to report harassment to Ceska and May, but failed to read the policy.9 Defendants argue that “[t]he burden was therefore on [Lenoir] to avail herself of the policies and procedures that she knew were available to her, and that she knew had worked in the past,” citing McPherson, 379 F.3d at 442. Like the plaintiff in McPherson, Lenoir failed to use the exact reporting procedures outlined in her employer’s policies. See id. at 434-35. However, Lenoir did report Lemus’s intimate physical contact with her to a project foreman, who promised to (and did) forward her complaint to the job site superintendent. Further, Lenoir claims she was instructed to follow that same procedure in reporting any future harassment, which she did. Lenoir availed herself of precisely the same reporting procedure that Coghlan accepted and approved of in the past: reporting her complaints to foreman Watkins.10 For these reasons, I am unable to find that Defendants are entitled to the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense as a matter of law and decline to grant summary judgment of Lenoir’s claim of a hostile work environment. Remedies
Defendants also argue that Lenoir may not seek back pay or reinstatement based on the allegations contained within the complaint. This argument is not challenged by the EEOC or Lenoir. Therefore, Lenoir’s remedies are limited to compensatory and punitive damages should the EEOC and Lenoir establish Defendants’ liability at trial.
9Lenoir also asserts that she was not permitted to keep a copy of the policy. 10Cf. McPherson, 379 F.3d at 442 (concluding that the employer acted reasonably in maintaining and disseminating harassment prevention policy and that the employee unreasonably failed to avail herself of that policy).
11

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 12 of 14
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim Defendants contend that Lenoir (who is not joined in this claim by the EEOC) cannot
meet the threshold for establishing a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).11 In order to prove this claim, Lenoir must show that Defendants’ conduct was truly extreme and outrageous, that they intended to inflict severe emotional distress (or knew that there was a high probability that their conduct would), and that the conduct actually caused severe emotional distress. See Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 798 N.E.2d 75, 80 (Ill. 2003) (citing McGrath v. Fahey, 533 N.E.2d 806 (Ill. 1988)). See also Wilson v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 718 N.E.2d 172, 180 (Ill. 1999). Extreme and outrageous conduct requires more than a showing of typical disagreement and “job-related stress caused by the average work environment.” See Honaker v. Smith, 256 F.3d 477, 491 (7th Cir. 2001). Lenoir’s allegations must demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was “so extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as intolerable in a civilized community.” Feltmeier, 798 N.E.2d at 83.
11Defendants also argue that Lenoir cannot establish a claim for IIED having failed to establish facts that would support her Title VII claim. In light of my earlier holding, this argument is moot.
12

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 13 of 14
Although Lemus’s behavior likely rose to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct,12
Lenoir’s suit does not name him as a defendant. Moreover, Lenoir produced no evidence that
Defendants intended their conduct (their response, or lack thereof, to her complaints of sexual
harassment) to inflict severe emotional distress upon her. At best, their conduct suggests a
negligent disregard of the risks Lenoir faced by her continued exposure to Lemus’s harassment;
this is not enough to satisfy the intent requirement of IIED in Illinois. Construing the facts in the
light most favorable to Lenoir, Defendants’ response to her allegations of harassment were
negligent, but not so extreme as to exceed the bounds of decency. Cf. id. at 83. Because
Lenoir’s IIED claim is misplaced, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of this claim is
granted.13
12Defendants argue at length that Lemus’s conduct could not satisfy the extreme and outrageous nature required to sustain claims of IIED. By way of comparison, Defendants rely on Pavlik v. Kornhaber, 761 N.E.2d 175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001), in which a plaintiff’s dismissed IIED claim was reinstated by the appellate court. The plaintiff was both a former patient and employee of the man she accused of harassment. The appellate court found that the allegations of the counselor’s fourteen memos (many with explicit sexual content), the persistence of his sexual pursuit and his position as both her employer and counselor were sufficient to sustain a claim of IIED. Id. at 185-86. Defendants contend that Lemus’s conduct lacks not only the persistence of the conduct in Pavlik but also the “extreme sexual nature” of that case. While the employer’s written words in Pavlik were much more explicit, Pavlik also lacked the explicitly sexual contact that occurred twice in this case. Moreover, Lemus’s alleged resumption of harassment soon after Coghlan departed from the scene suggests a persistence similar to that of the employer in Pavlik. Lemus’s conduct progressed from requests for sex at work to requests for sex at Lenoir’s home to intimate physical contact; several months later, he resumed his offensive physical contact and propositioned Lenoir with a condom. I suspect that Lemus’s alleged conduct was sufficient to support a claim of IIED. Cf. Lara v. Diamond Detective Agency, 412 F. Supp. 2d 894, 900-01 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (dismissing IIED claim when it was based on comments about the employee’s breasts, an attempt to peer down the employee’s shirt, solicitations for dates, touching the employee’s hair and daily comments about the employee’s perfume).
13Cf. Pavlik, 761 N.E.2d at 185, in which the accused harasser was the named defendant of the IIED claim.
13

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 80 Filed 08/30/06 Page 14 of 14

For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiffs’ claim of sexual harassment is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of PlaintiffIntervenor’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is GRANTED.

DATE: August 30, 2006

ENTER:
James B. Zagel _______________________________
James B. Zagel United States District Judge

14

 
 Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 91 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois
In the Matter of

EEOC WALSH

Case No. 03 C 3601

TRANSFER OF CASE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR A REASSIGNMENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above-captioned cause is currentl.y pending on my calendar. I recommend to the Executive
Com]ittee that this case be reassiied to the calendar of Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
pursuant to Local Rule 73.1. Parties have consented to the reassignment as indicated on the reverse of this form.

Dated: September 4, 2007

James B. cl

ORDER OF TI-LE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above captioned case be reassigned to the calendar of Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys ofthis Court in accordance with the Rules.
ENTER
FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Dated: SEP - 52001

hief Judge Janes F. Holderrn.an

PDF compreRscassisoignn/,i)cOsivCatRcd,MwaiseUbatcoJpudtgimc (Xizcva. t9i/o99n) using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 91 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 2
Parties have consented to have the designated magistrate conduct:
S any and all proceedings including entry of a final judgment in
accordance with Local Rule 73.1(b).
L specific proceedings pursuant to 28 Usc § 636(c). Where such a
reassignment is made, the case shall remain on the calendar of the
district judge in accordance with Qeneral Rule 73.1(c).

The content of the consent is specified in the following manner:

L on the attached form(s).

I

in the pretrial order dated 8/9/2007 and on file with the Clerk of Court.

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

 
 Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIct COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff, )

)

and

)

)

JANICE LENOIR,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

)

)

vs.

)

)

WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY )

OF ILLINOIS, and WALSHIlI IN ONE )

JOINT VENTURE,

)

)

Defendants. )
_..J

Case No: 03 C 3601 Magistrate Judge Keys

CONSENT PECREE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter the "Commission" or the

"EEOC',), filed this action against Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, and WalshlII in One

Joint Venture, under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U,S,C, § 2000e, et

~ ("Title VII"), Janice Lenoir later intervened as a party Plaintiff, Plaintiffs have alleged that

Defendants failed to take prompt and effective action in regard to harassment of Janice Lenoir

based on her sex.

The parties have determined to finally resolve this action through the entry of this

Consent Decree.

1

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 11
'.
Findings Having carefully examined the tenns and provisions of this Consent Decree, the Court finds the following: I. This Court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(J) and (3). 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties. 3. The tenns and provisions of this Consent Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable and just. This Consent Decree resolves all claims alleged by the EEOC in its Complaint and by Janice Lenoir in her Intervening Complaint. The rights of the parties and the interests of the public are adequately protected by this Consent Decree. 4. This Consent Decree confonns with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of Title VII. WHEREFORE, upon the consent of the parties, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 5. This Consent Decree shall apply to the job sites and facilities in Chicago, Illinois of Walsh Construction Company of Illinois (hereafter referred to as "Defendant."). The Court and the parties have been advised that WalshlIi in One Joint Venture has gone out of business.
Injunction Against Harassment 6. Defendant and its managers, supervisors, officers, directors and agents, are
enjoined from engaging in sexual harassment or harassment based on sex and from failing to
2

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 11
'.
take prompt and effective action in response to complaints of sexual harassment or harassment based on sex.
Distribution of Policy Against Harassment 7. Within 5 days after entry of this Consent Decree and continuously for the duration of this Decree, Defendant shall post a copy of its policy against sexual harassment at each Chicago work site at the location where is posts OSHA notices, and in its Human Resources Offices on a bulletin board used for notices to employees. During the tenn of this Decree, Defendant shall provide to each new employee on the date of hire a copy of that policy.
Non-Retaliation 8. Defendant and its offiCers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting in concert with it shall not engage in any fonn of retaliation against any person because such person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge of Discrimination under Title VII, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII, or asserted any rights under this Decree.
Posted Notice 9. Within 10 days after this Consent Decree is entered, and continuously for the duration of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall conspicuously post the Notice attached as Exhibit A at each Chicago work site at the location where is posts OSHA notices, and in its Human Resources Offices on all bulletin boards commonly used for announcements from Defendant to its employees. Within 20 calendar days after entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall certify to the EEOC in writing that the notice has been posted. Eleven months later it shall certify to the EEOC in writing that the Notice remains posted.
3

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 4 of 11
'.
Monetary Relief
10. Within 10 days after submission by Janice Lenoir of a release of claims that has
been negotiated by her counsel and counsel for Defendant, Defendant shall pay $130,000 to Janice Lenoir and her attorneys, Daley, DeBofsky & Bryant. Contemporaneously, Defendant shalI furnish to EEOC a copy of the check(s) provided to her and her attorney. EEOC had no role in the negotiation of and has not approved said release of claims.
II. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 10 above, all parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees.
Training 12. a) Within 30 days of the start of a new project all supervisors assigned to that project shall receive training by a trainer paid for by Defendant regarding sexual harassment, Defendant's policy against sexual harassment, and their duties under that policy.
b) Within 6 months of the entry of this Decree all other supervisors assigned to a project shall receive such training.
c) Within 30 days of the entry of this Decree all members of Defendant's Human Resources Department (personnel) shall receive such training and in addition, such training shall be provided promptly to each person who in the future becomes a member of the Human Resources Department.
13. Defendant shall obtain the EEOC's approval of the proposed trainer prior to the training session. Defendant shall submit the name, address, telephone number, resume and training proposal of the proposed trainer to the EEOC at least fifteen days prior to the proposed date of the training. The EEOC shall have five calendar days from the date of receipt of the
4

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 5 of 11
information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer. If the plU1ies cannot through this process agree on a trainer, then they may seek the Court's assistance under Paragraph 20.
14. Defendant shall certify to the EEOC in writing within five business days after the training has occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the date, location and duration of the training; and (ii) the name and position of each person in attendance.
Record Keeping I S. For the duration of this Decree,
a) With respect to each complaint or incident of sexual harassment reported to or discovered by Defendant's Human Resources Department, Defendant shaH maintain, and make available for inspection and copying by the EEOC records, including the name, social security number, address, and telephone number, of each employee who complains of sexual harassment, and of the information learned during and as a result of any investigation of such complaints.
b) Defendant shall use its best efforts to learn of all complaints and incidents of sexual harassment.
c) Defendant shall maintain a system enabling it to easily and readily retrieve all complaints of sexual harassment filed against the same person. 16 Defendant shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 15 above, available for inspection and copying within ten (! 0) business days after the EEOC so requests. In addition, Defendant shall make available on ten (l0) business day notice its supervisory personnel whom the EEOC requests to interview for purposes of verifying compliance with this
5

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 6 of 11
Paragraph. Reporting
17. Defendant shall furnish to the EEOC a written report six, twelve and 17 months after the entry of this Decree in regard to the complaints of sexual harassment referred to in Paragraph 15. Each such report shall contain the name and address of each employee who, in the last six months (Of five months for the last report), complained of sexual harassment, the nature of the complaint and who is alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment. Such reports shall state what actions Defendant has taken to resolve each complaint. If no employee made such a complaint an officer of Defendant shall submit a signed statement so stating. Each report shall also contain a statement signed by an officer of Defendant that the Notice required to be posted in 9, above, remained posted during the entire six month (or five month) period preceding the report.
Enforcement 18. This Consent Decree shall be in effect for the period of 18 months, during which time the Court shall retain jurisdiction of the parties and of this action for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree. 19. If any provision of this Consent Decree is found to be unlawful, only the specific provision in question shall be affected and all other provisions will remain in full force and effect.
Dispute Resolution 20. If the EEOC has reason to believe that Defendant is not complying with this Consent Decree, the EEOC shall so notify Defendant in writing. Defendant will then have ten
6

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 7 of 11
business days in which to achieve compliance or to satisfy the EEOC that there has been no noncompliance; if Defendant does neither, the EEOC shan have the right to apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
MiseellaDeous ProvisiODS 21. The terms of this Consent Decree shall be binding upon the present and future directors, officers, managers, agents, successors and assigns of Defendant. Defendant, and any successor(s) of Defendant, shall provide a copy of this Decree to any organization or person who proposes to acquire or merge with Defendant, or any successor of Defendant, prior to the effectiveness of any such acquisition or merger. This paragraph shall not be deemed to limit any remedies available in the event of any finding by the Court regarding a violation of this Decree. 22. When this Decree requires the submission by Defendant of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to Gordon Waldron, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. When this Decree requires submission by the EEOC of materials to Defendant, they shall be mailed to Peter Glimco, General Counsel, Walsh Group Ltd., 929 W. Adams St. Chicago, Illinois 60607. 23. Defendant may direct employees at job sites to make complaints of sexual harassment to a designated person in the Human Resources Department. Such person shall make periodic visits to job sites and be identified in notices posted at job sites. Defendant's antiharassment policy shall require all supervisors and managers to report complaints and incidents of sexual harassment to the Human Resources Department.
7

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 8 of 11

Approved for Plaintiff EEOC

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel

JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Associate General Counsel

Equal

Opportunity Commission

180 I L Stn;oI'JIN

Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7525
8

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 9 of 11

Approved for Plaintiff Intervenor

Mark OeBofslcy DQiey, DeBofslcy and Bryant 1 N. LaSQile S1. Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 372-5200 Attorney for Intervening Plaintiff, Janice Lenoir

Approved for Defendants

E. Bryan Dunigan

,

162 West Orand Ave

1!•

Chicago, II 60610 (312) 527-0414 Attorney for Defendant

Tom H. Luetkemeyer and Aimee Delaney Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 222 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60101-1081 (312) 704·3000 Attorney for Defendant
ENTERED AND ORDERED THIS 19-MOAY OF ~ ,2007
a0,. a... l:rs:
Magistrate Judge Ke

9

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 10 of 11
Approved for Plaintiff Intervenor
Mark DeBofsky Daley, De Bo/sky and Bryant One North LaSalle St., Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 372·5200 Attorney for Intervening Plaintiff, Janice Ldnoir
Approved for Defendants

Tom H. Luetkemeyer and A' ee Delaney Hinshaw & Culbertsan, LL 222 North LaSalle St., Suite 300 Chicago, II. 6060 I·1 081 (312) 704·3000 Attorney for Ddcndant

/1 nO ENTERED AND ORDERED THIS fI.oAY OF

ue.... ~ ,2007

.~~:5,~ .. _
Magistrate JudgeXeys

9

. ,

Case 1:03-cv-03601 Document 98 Filed 11/19/07 Page 11 of 11

EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF ILLINOiS
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC'') against Walsh Construction Company of Illinois ("Defendant") (# 03C 3601, N,D, IL.)
In its suit, the EEOC alleged that Defendant failed to use reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly acts of sexual harassment.
To resolve the case, Defendant and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree (without any admission of liability by Defendant, and without any waiver of claims by the EEOC) which provides for monetary relief and also provides that:
I) Defendant will not create, facilitate or permit the existence of a work environment that is hostile to employees on the basis of their sex,
2) Defendant will not retaliate against any person because (s)he opposed any
practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree;

The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability, If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may follow the complaint procedure in Defendant' non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy and you may contact the EEOC at (312) 353-2713, The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English,

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANyONE
This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced 01' covered by any other material, Any questions about this Notice 01' compliance with its terms may be directed to: Walsb Construction Company Settlement, EEOC, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Cbieago, JL 60661.

,,)15/0"1
Date

r, Chicago District Office qual Employment Opportunity Commission

10

 
 Case: 1:03-cv-3601 As of: 05/05/2010 01:28 PM CDT 1 of 9
KEYS, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.0.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03−cv−03601

EEOC v. Walsh Constr Co, et al Assigned to: Honorable Arlander Keys Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/28/2003 Date Terminated: 11/15/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Gordon G. Waldron United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353−7525 Fax: (312)353−8555 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.
Defendant
Walsh Construction Company of Illinois

represented by E. Bryan Dunigan , III Law Offices of E. Bryan Dunigan 221 North LaSalle Street Suite 1454 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 857−2114 Fax: (312) 372−1733 Email: bdunigan@duniganlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aimee Elizabeth Delaney Hinshaw &Culbertson 222 North LaSalle Street

Case: 1:03-cv-3601 As of: 05/05/2010 01:28 PM CDT 2 of 9

Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60601−1081 (312) 704−3000 Email: adelaney@hinshawlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tom H. Luetkemeyer Hinshaw &Culbertson LLP 222 North LaSalle Street Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 704−3000 Email: tluetkemeyer@hinshawlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Walsh/II in One Joint Venture

represented by Aimee Elizabeth Delaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tom H. Luetkemeyer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Janice Lenoir

represented by Mark D. DeBofsky Daley, DeBofsky &Bryant 55 W. Monroe St. Suite 2440 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 372−5200 Email: mdebofsky@ddbchicago.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Alan Jackson Daley, DeBofsky &Bryant 1 North LaSalle Street Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 372−5200 Email: stevejackson@i2k.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/28/2003
06/18/2003 07/29/2003 07/29/2003 08/18/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; jury demand − Civil cover sheet − Appearance(s) of John C. Hendrickson, Gregory M. Gochanour, Gordon G. Waldron as attorney(s) for plaintiff ( No summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1−1 through 1−3) (hp) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
2 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant sent on 5/30/03 (hmb) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Walsh Constr Co by E. Bryan Dunigan III (cem) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
4 ANSWER by defendant to plaintiff's complaint [1−1]; Jury demand. (cem) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
5 MOTION by intervenor plaintiff to intervene , and for leave to file amended complaint instanter. ; Notice. (aga) (Entered: 08/27/2003)

Case: 1:03-cv-3601 As of: 05/05/2010 01:28 PM CDT 3 of 9

08/18/2003 08/26/2003
08/26/2003 12/15/2003 01/12/2004 02/10/2004 02/11/2004 02/13/2004 02/17/2004
02/17/2004 02/24/2004
02/24/2004
03/29/2004 04/21/2004 05/14/2004 05/20/2004
06/03/2004 06/03/2004 06/10/2004 07/15/2004 07/20/2004

6 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor plaintiff by Mark D. DeBofsky. (aga) (Entered: 08/27/2003)
7 MINUTE ORDER of 8/26/03 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Janice Lenoir's motion to intervene as plaintiff−intervenor [5−1] and for leave to file amended complaint instanter is granted [5−2]. Mailed notice (aga) Modified on 09/08/2003 (Entered: 08/27/2003)
8 AMENDED COMPLAINT of civil rights violation by intervenor plaintiff. (aga) (Entered: 08/27/2003)
9 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor plaintiff Janice Lenoir by Stephen Alan Jackson; Notice. (aga) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 1/12/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing set to 10:00 2/11/04 . Mailed notice (drw) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
10 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file second amended complaint ; Notice. (jmm) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 2/11/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing held and continued to 10:00 4/21/04 . No notice (drw) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
13 MOTION by EEOC for leave to file first amended complaint ; ; Notice. (gcy) Modified on 02/25/2004 (Entered: 02/25/2004)
11 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted. No notice (jmm) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
12 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff of civil rights violation; jury demand. (jmm) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
14 MINUTE ORDER of 2/24/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Plaintiff's E.E.O.C.'s motion for leave to file first amended complaint is granted [13−1]. Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff EEOC; jury demand; adding Walsh/II in One Joint Venture. (gcy) Modified on 02/25/2004 (Entered: 02/25/2004)
16 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant Walsh/II in One Joint Venture sent on 3/16/04 (cdy) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 4/21/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset to 10:00 7/14/04 . No notice (drw) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
17 MOTION by defendant Walsh/II in One to dismiss case (Attachments); Notice. (jmm) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
18 MINUTE ORDER of 5/20/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel: Answer brief to Walsh/II's motion to dismiss case [17−1] due 6/3/04. Reply to answer brief due 6/10/04. Status hearing set for 7/15/04 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (jmm) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
19 RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to defendant's motion to dismiss case [17−1] (Attachments); Notice. (jmm) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
20 RESPONSE by plaintiff−intervenor Janice Lenoir to defendant's motion to dismiss case [17−1] (Attachments); Notice. (jmm) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
21 REPLY by defendant Walsh/II in One Joint Venture in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaints [17−1]. (jmm) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 7/15/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing reset to 10:00 7/28/04 . No notice (drw) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
22 MINUTE ORDER of 7/20/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Joint Venture's motion to dismiss is denied. Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 07/21/2004)

Case: 1:03-cv-3601 As of: 05/05/2010 01:28 PM CDT 4 of 9

07/28/2004 08/11/2004 08/11/2004 09/08/2004 11/30/2004 01/12/2005 02/02/2005 02/02/2005 04/06/2005 05/27/2005 05/27/2005 06/06/2005 06/07/2005 06/13/2005 06/15/2005 08/11/2005 08/11/2005
08/17/2005 08/17/2005

SCHEDULE set on 7/28/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing held and continued to 10:00 9/8/04 . Discovery ordered closed on 5:00 11/30/04 . No notice (drw) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
23 ONE JOINT VENTURE ANSWER by defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois to plaintiff Janice Lenoir second amended complaint [8−1]. (jmm) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
24 ONE JOINT VENTURE ANSWER by defendant Walsh Construction Company of Illinois and Walsh/II to plaintiff equal employment opportunity commistion first amended complaint [15−1]. (jmm) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 9/8/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing held and continued to 10:00 11/30/04 . Discovery ongoing. No Notice (drw) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 11/30/04 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing held and continued to 10:00 2/2/05 . Discovery ordered closed on 5:00 1/31/05 . No notice (drw) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 1/12/05 by Hon. James B. Zagel : Status hearing set for 2/2/05 is stricken. Settlement conference set for 4:30 2/2/05 . Mailed notice (drw) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
25 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Settlement conference held. (drw, ) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
26 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing set for 4/6/2005 at 10:00 AM. (drw, ) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
27 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing held on 4/6/2005 Status hearing set for 6/15/2005 at 10:00 AM. No notice mailed (drw, ) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
28 MOTION by Defendants for leave to file an additional appearance (Attachments: # 1 Attorney Appearance)(gma, ) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
29 NOTICE of Motion by defendants for presentment of MOTION by Defendants for leave to file an additional appearance 28 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 6/7/2005 at 10:15 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
30 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to defendant's motion for leave to file an additional appearance. (jmm, ) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
32 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : MOTION by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture for leave to file 28 additional appearance is granted. No notice (drw, ) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
31 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture by Aimee Elizabeth Delaney, Tom H. Luetkemeyer. (jmm, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
33 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing held on 6/15/2005. Discovery ordered closed by 9/12/2005. Status hearing set for 9/12/2005 at 10:00 AM. No notice (drw, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
34 UNCONTESTED MOTION by Defendant Walsh Construction Company of Illinois for court order requiring medical deposition (gma, ) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
35 NOTICE of Motion by Aimee Elizabeth Delaney for presentment of UNCONTESTED MOTION by Defendant Walsh Construction Company of Illinois for court order requiring medical deposition 34 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 8/18/2005 at 10:15 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
36 UNCONTESTED MOTION by Defendant Walsh Construction Company of Illinois to extend discovery cut−off (gma, ) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
37 NOTICE of Motion by Aimee Elizabeth Delaney for presentment of UNCONTESTED MOTION by Defendant Walsh Construction Company of

Case: 1:03-cv-3601 As of: 05/05/2010 01:28 PM CDT 5 of 9

08/18/2005 08/18/2005 08/30/2005 09/07/2005 09/12/2005 10/07/2005 11/01/2005
11/03/2005 11/22/2005
01/13/2006
01/19/2006 01/31/2006
04/28/2006 04/28/2006

Illinois to extend discovery cut−off 36 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 8/30/2005 at 10:15 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
38 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Uncontested MOTION by Defendant Walsh Construction Company of Illinois 34 for order requiring medical deposition is granted. Telephoned notice (drw, ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
39 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Defendant's motion for court order requiring medical deposition is granted. Motion hearing held on 8/18/2005. Telephoned notice (drw, ) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
41 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Motion 34 to extend discovery deadline until 10/1/2005 to schedule depositions is granted. Discovery ordered closed by 10/3/2005. Telephoned notice (drw, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
40 NOTICE by E. Bryan Dunigan, III of Change of Address. (jmm, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
42 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing held on 9/12/2005. Medical deposition scheduled. Status hearing set for 11/7/2005 at 10:00 AM. (drw, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
43 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER:Case referred to Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys for settlement conference by Judge James B. Zagel, signed on 10/07/05, signed by Chief Judge Kocoras on 10/07/05. (For further detail see order).(ar, ) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
44 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : Settlement Conference set for 11/14/2005 at 10:00 AM. All parties are to be represented at the settlement conference by an individual (other than their attorneys) with full authority to settle. The parties are to exchange (but not file) written settlement offers, copies of which are to be submitted to the court by 11/10/05. (ac, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
45 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing set for 11/7/2005 is stricken. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
46 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys :Settlement conference is reset to 01/18/2006 at 1:30 p.m. pursuant to the agreement of the parties. This new date has been agreed upon by the parties and will not be changed. All parties are to be represented at the settlement conference by an individual (other than their attorneys) with full authority to settle. The parties are to exchange (but not file) written settlement offers, copies of which are to be submitted to the Court by 01/11/06 (ac, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
47 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : On the Court's own motion, settlement conference set for 01/18/2006 at 1:30 p.m. is reset to 1/19/06 at 1:30 p.m. All parties are to be represented at the settlement conference by an individual (other than their attorneys) with full authority to settle. The parties are to exchange (but not file) written settlement offers, copies of which are to be submitted to the Court by 01/11/06. Telephoned notice (ac, ) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
48 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys :On the Court's own motion, settlement conference set for 01/19/2006 is reset to 1/31/06 at 10:00 a.m. All parties are to be represented at the settlement conference by an individual (other than their attorneys) with full authority to settle. (ac, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
49 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : Settlement conference held. The parties are extremely far apart. This case will not settle. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Judge Arlander Keys no longer referred to the case. Mailed notice (ar, ) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
50 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSet Deadline for Dispositive Motions (Waldron, Gordon) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
51 NOTICE of Motion by Gordon G. Waldron for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 50 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 5/4/2006 at 10:15 AM. (Waldron, Gordon) (Entered: 04/28/2006)

Case: 1:03-cv-3601 As of: 05/05/2010 01:28 PM CDT 6 of 9

05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/03/2006 05/09/2006 05/09/2006 05/09/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006
06/07/2006 06/15/2006 06/15/2006 06/15/2006 06/15/2006 06/15/2006 06/20/2006

52 MOTION by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture for leave to file excess pages and excess paragraphs for Local Rule 56.1 Statement (Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
53 Defendants' NOTICE of Motion by Aimee Elizabeth Delaney for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 52 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 5/9/2006 at 10:15 AM. (Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
54 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to set deadline for dispositive motions 50 is granted. Schedule to be determined by mail. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
55 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Count II (Retaliation Claim) (Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
56 NOTICE by all defendants re stipulation of dismissal 55 of Count II (Retaliation Claim) (Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
57 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : MOTION by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture for leave to file excess pages and excess paragraphs for Local Rule 56.1 Statement 52 is granted. (drw, ) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
58 MOTION by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture for summary judgment (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
59 MEMORANDUM by Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture in Support of motion for summary judgment 58 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
60 RULE 56 1 Statement Of Uncontested Facts (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 part 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 part 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1 part 3# 5 Exhibit 2# 6 Exhibit 3# 7 Exhibit 4# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 5 part 1# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 5 part 2# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 5 part 3# 11 Exhibit 6# 12 Exhibit 7# 13 Exhibit 8# 14 Exhibit 9# 15 Exhibit 10# 16 Exhibit 11# 17 Exhibit 12# 18 Exhibit 13# 19 Exhibit 14# 20 Exhibit 15)(Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
61 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Set deadlines/hearing as to motion for summary judgment 58 : Response due by 6/15/2006. Reply due by 6/29/2006. Motion ruling before Honorable James B. Zagel on 7/27/2006 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
62 RULE 56 1 Statement of facts (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(DeBofsky, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
63 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiff Janice Lenoir to Defendants' Statement of Facts (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(DeBofsky, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
64 Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Facts and to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Statement of Facts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Janice Lenoir (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(DeBofsky, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
65 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiff Janice Lenoir for leave to file Memorandum in Excess of Fifteen Pages (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum)(DeBofsky, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
66 NOTICE of Motion by Mark D. DeBofsky for presentment of motion for leave to file 65 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 6/20/2006 at 10:15 AM. (DeBofsky, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
67 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Motion 52 for leave to file memorandum in excess of fifteen pages is granted. Mailed notice (ar, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

Case: 1:03-cv-3601 As of: 05/05/2010 01:28 PM CDT 7 of 9

06/29/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 07/06/2006 07/06/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/11/2006
07/12/2006 07/27/2006 08/30/2006
09/12/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006

68 REPLY by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture to motion for summary judgment 58 (Attachments: # 1)(Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
69 RESPONSE by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture to Rule 56 statement 62 of Additional Facts by Plaintiffs (Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
70 REPLY by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture to Rule 56 statement, 60 of Uncontested Facts by Defendants (Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
71 NOTICE by all defendants re Response 69 , reply 70 , reply 68 in support of Summary Judgment (Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
72 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to file instanter Additional Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Waldron, Gordon) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
73 NOTICE of Motion by Gordon G. Waldron for presentment of motion to file instanter 72 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 7/11/2006 at 10:15 AM. (Waldron, Gordon) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
74 MOTION by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture for leave to file Defendants' Response to Motion to Cite Additional Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Cite Additional Authority)(Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
75 Defendants' NOTICE of Motion by Aimee Elizabeth Delaney for presentment of motion for leave to file, 74 before Honorable James B. Zagel on 7/13/2006 at 10:15 AM. (Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
76 Regarding Additional Authority STATEMENT by Janice Lenoir (DeBofsky, Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
77 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to file instanter Additional Authority 72 is granted. MOTION by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture for leave to file Defendants' Response to Motion to Cite Additional Authority 74 is granted. MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiff Janice Lenoir for leave to file Memorandum in Excess of Fifteen Pages 65 is granted. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
78 RESPONSE by Defendants Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Cite Additional Authority (72) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
79 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing stricken. Ruling on motion for summary judgment to be made by mail. Telephoned notice (drw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
80 MOTION for summary judgment 58 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claim of sexual harrassment is denied. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is granted. MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge James B. Zagel on 8/30/2006:Mailed notice(drw, ) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
81 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing set for 9/27/2006 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
82 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing held on 9/27/2006. Settlement referral to Judge Keys requested. Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 10/15/2006)
83 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys for the purpose of holding proceedings related to settlement conference.(drw, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 10/15/2006)

Case: 1:03-cv-3601 As of: 05/05/2010 01:28 PM CDT 8 of 9

11/29/2006 01/10/2007 01/11/2007 02/06/2007 03/29/2007 05/31/2007 08/09/2007
09/05/2007 09/26/2007 09/28/2007
10/10/2007
11/08/2007 11/15/2007

84 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : Settlement conference set for 01/10/07 at 1:30 PM. All parties are to be represented at the settlement conference by an individual (other than their attorneys) with full authority to settle. The parties are to exchange (but not file) written settlement offers, copies of which are to be submitted to the court by 01/04/07. (ar, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
86 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : Extensive settlement conference held. While some progress was made towards narrowing the differences between the Plaintiffs' demands and the Defendant's offer, the parties remain far apart in terms of settlement. This case will not settle at this time. (ar, ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
85 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge.Judge Arlander Keys no longer referred to the case. (ar, ) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
87 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Status hearing set for 3/29/2007 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
88 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel :Status hearing held on 3/29/2007. Depositions to be completed.Status hearing set for 5/31/2007 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
89 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel :Status hearing held on 5/31/2007. Pretrial Order due by 8/9/2007. Status hearing set for 8/24/2007 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (drw, ) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
90 PROPOSED Pretrial Order (Joint) by Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, Walsh/II in One Joint Venture (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Stipulated Facts# 2 Exhibit B1− Plaintiffs' Witness List# 3 Exhibit B2− Defense Witness List# 4 Exhibit C1− Plaintiffs' Exhibit List# 5 Exhibit C2− Defense Exhibit List# 6 Exhibit D1− Plaintiffs' Proposed Instructions# 7 Exhibit D2− Defendants' Proposed Instructions# 8 Exhibit E1− Plaintiffs' Motions In Limine# 9 Exhibit E2− Defendants' Motions In Limine)(Delaney, Aimee) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
91 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to Judge Arlander Keys for any and all proceedings including entry of a final judgment in accordance with Local Rule 73.1(b). Signed by Executive Committee on 9/5/2007. (rp, ) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
92 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys :Status hearing set for 9/28/2007 at 09:00 AM. in courtroom 2230.(ac, ) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
93 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : Status hearing held. Settlement Conference set for 10/10/2007 at 01:30 PM. All parties are to be represented at the settlement conference by an individual (other than their attorneys) with full authority to settle. The parties are to exchange (but not file) written settlement offers, copies of which are to be submitted to the court by 10/04/07. This is a requirement, not an option, and no follow up calls for this information will be made by the court's staff. Failure to comply with this requirement is sanctionable. (ar, ) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
94 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : Settlement conference held; the case settled. The terms of which were stated on the record. The Parties will need additional time to prepare the settlement documents. Status hearing set for 11/9/2007 at 09:00 AM. If plaintiff files a stipulation to dismiss prior to the next status hearing, the status will be stricken and parties will not need to appear. (ac, ) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
95 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys: Pursuant to the Parties' request, status hearing set for 11/9/07 is reset to 11/16/2007 at 09:00 AM.(ac, ) Modified on 11/13/2007 (ar, ). (Entered: 11/08/2007)
96 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : This case has settled. Pursuant to the telephonic request of the Parties, this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without cost. Status hearing set for 11/16/07 is stricken.Civil case terminated. (ac, ) (Entered: 11/15/2007)

Case: 1:03-cv-3601 As of: 05/05/2010 01:28 PM CDT 9 of 9

11/19/2007 11/19/2007

97 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : Enter Consent Decree. The parties have determined to finally resolve this action through the entry of this Consent Decree. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the Consent Decree. (For further detail see separate order). (ar, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
98 CONSENT Decree, signed by Judge Arlander Keys on 11/19/2007 97 .(ar, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)