IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT" f'\'-'

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

T

l; :,...,,~ ,,, •••).

•• \. '.,J I

U

i

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04 C 5 0 3 5

v.

)

)

COMPLAINT

THE BLOOMIN' APPLE ROCKFORD I,

)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LLC, THE BLOOMIN' APPLE, LLC, and

)

HEARTLAND APPLE, INC.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

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 to correct

unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation and to provide appropriate

relief to a class of female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") alleges that The

Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, The Bloomin' Apple, LLC, and Heartland Apple, Inc.

(collectively"Applebee's") subjected Christina Javid, Susan Brennecka, Tracey Rangel, Vicki

Miner and Erin Foster (collectively referred to hereafter as "Charging Parties"), and a class of

female employees to harassment on the basis of sex. EEOC also alleges that Applebee's

retaliated against Charging Parties Christina Javid, Vicki Miner, Erin Foster and a class of

female employees by subjecting them to different terms and conditions of employment. EEOC

also alleges that Applebee's retaliated against Charging Party Susan Brennecka by terminating

, \1" \
_ _ _ _ .__~~_~________--.-J.I_ _

her employment. EEOC further alleges that Applebee's constructively discharged Charging Parties Erin Foster and Christina Javid and a class of female employees, in violation of Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. Section 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3). 4. At all times relevant, Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC has continuously been doing business in the Northern District of Illinois and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all times relevant, Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC has
-2-

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. Sections 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all times relevant, Defendant The Bloomin' Apple, LLC has continuously been doing business in the Northern District of Illinois and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.
7. At all times relevant, Defendant The Bloom' Apple, LLC 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. Sections 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
8. At all times relevant, Defendant Heartland Apple, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the Northern District of Illinois and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.
9. At all times relevant, Defendant The Heartland Apple, Inc. 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. Sections 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
10. At all times relevant, Defendants, The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, the Bloomin' Apple, LLC, and Heartland Apple, Inc. (collectively "Applebee's"), have operated as a single employer for purposes of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 11. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Applebee's. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
-3-

" ,

;

12. Since at least August 1998, Applebee's has engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its restaurant located at 1675 East Riverside Boulevard in Rockford, Illinois, in

violation of Sections 701(k) and 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e(k) and 2(a).

Such unlawful employment practices have included: 1) subjecting Charging Parties and a class

of female employees to harassment and a hostile work environment because of their sex;

2) retaliating against some Charging Parties and a class of female employees by subjecting

them to different terms and conditions of employment, and to termination; and 3)

constructively discharging some Charging Parties and a class of female employees.

13. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Charging

Parties, and a class of female employees adversely affected by the discriminatory actions, of

equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees

because of their sex.

14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 and 13

above were intentional.

IS. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 and 13

above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

Charging Parties and a class of female employees because of their sex.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Applebee's, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any
-4-

employment practice which discriminates because of sex. B. Order Applebee's to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs
which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful practices. C. Order Applebee's to make whole Charging Parties and the affected class by
providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including reinstatement where appropriate.
D. Order Applebee's to make whole Charging Parties and the affected class by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs12 and 13 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Applebee's to make whole Charging Parties and the affected class by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, including emotional pain, inconvenience, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Applebee's to pay Charging Parties and the affected class punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
-5-

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Laurie S. Elkin Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7726
-6-

Civil Cover Sheet

o
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Page lof2

Civil Cover Sheet

u. s. i..Ji'~ \ f'( C-I~ CQUR-r

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 or other papers as required

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

04C50375

Plaintiff(s): EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Defendant(s):THE BLOOMIN' APPLE ROCKFORD I, LLC THE BLOOMIN' APPLE,LLC THE HEARTLAND, INC.

County of Residence:

County of Residence: BOONE

Plaintiffs Arty:

Laurie S. Elkin

Defendant's Arty:

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

500 W. Madison, Suite 2800

Chicago, IL 60661

John E. Dougherty
252 N. Montc1aire Ave., Glen Ellyn, IL 60137

II. Basis of Jurisdiction:

1. U.s. Gov't Plaintiff

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

N. Origin:

1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

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

200e et seq., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of1991, 42 U.S.C. §

1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of

sexual harassment and retaliation

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action: Yes

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

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

1J~ Signature: £. ~
Date: ¥~ 8/ aooLj

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.govIPUBLIClForms/auto~s44.cfm

0. 0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'!' NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

In the Matter of

WESTERN DIVISION

u.s. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, The Bloomin' Apple, LLC, Heartland Apple, Inc.

Case NUlB-~~~: u, ..• i I O. 4~ ~,.5:P 3 7.5

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

(A) .

b-.. SIGNATURE -n.~

~

NAME
Laurie S. Elkin

FIRM Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

SlJl.EET ADDRESS 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2800

CITY/STATMIP Chicago, IL
TELEPHONE NUMBER
312-353-7726

1 60661 FAX NUMBER

E-MAIL ADDRESS

SIGNATU~~

FIRM Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

STREET ADDRESS 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2800

CITY1STA TE.Q:IP
Chicago, IL
TELEPHONE NUMBER
3120353-7259

60661
I FAX NUMBER

E·MAIL ADDRESS

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ARDC NO. 6210523

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?
I I TIl.IALATTORNEY?

--- "'"/""

0 YES

YES

0

NO

NO

~

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ARDC NO> 06210804

MEMBER OF TRlAL BAR?

7 ATTORNEY?

YES

LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES

0 ~

NO

o NO

o o NO

I FIRM Eq ual Employment Opportunity Commission

I\STREET ADD1s 500 W. Madison st., Suite 2800

I "~" Chicago, IL 60661

TELEPHONE NUMBER

FAX NUMBER

312-353-8551

E-MAIL ADDRESS

FIRM STREET ADDRESS CITY1STATMIP TELEPHONE NUMBER E·MAIL ADDRESS

-. J 0 2004
IFAXNUMBER

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ARDC NO. 01187589

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

YES

~

NO

o

TRIAL ATTORNEY?

YES

~

NO

o

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES

0

o NO

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? TRIAL ATTORNEY? DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES YES YES

o 0 NO o NO 0 o 0 NO

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

v.

)

)

THE BLOOMIN' APPLE ROCKFORD I, LLC )

THE BLOOMIN' APPLE, LLC, and

)

HEARTLAND APPLE, INC.,

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04 C 50375
JUDGE REINHARD MAGISTRATE MAHONEY

PLAINTIFF EEOC'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 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 VIlli), and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to a class offemale employees who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") alleges that The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, The Bloomin' Apple, LLC, and Heartland Apple, Inc. (collectively"Applebee's") subjected Christina Javid, Susan Brennecka, Tracey Rangel, Vicki Miner and Erin Foster (collectively referred to hereafter as "Charging Parties"), and a class of female employees to harassment on the basis of sex. EEOC also alleges that Applebee's retaliated against Charging Parties Christina Javid, Vicki Miner, Erin Foster and a class of female employees by subjecting them to different terms and conditions of employment. EEOC

also alleges that Applebee's retaliated against Charging Party Susan Brennecka by terminating her employment. EEOC further alleges that Applebee's constructively discharged Charging Parties Erin Foster and Christina Javid and a class offemale employees, in violation of Title VII. EEOC alleges that Applebee's engaged in an illegal pattern or practice of sex discrimination.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451,1331,1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) and Section 707(e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3) and § 2000e-6(e), and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) and Section 707(e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. Section 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) and § 2000e-6(e). 4. At all times relevant, Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC has continuously been doing business in the Northern District of Illinois and has continuously had
-2-

at least fifteen employees. 5. At all times relevant, Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC 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. Sections 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all times relevant, Defendant The Bloomin' Apple, LLC has continuously been doing business in the Northern District of Illinois and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.
7. At all times relevant, Defendant The Bloomin' Apple, LLC 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. Sections 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
8. At all times relevant, Defendant Heartland Apple, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the Northern District of Illinois and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.
9. At all times relevant, Defendant The Heartland Apple, Inc. 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. Sections 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
10. At all times relevant, Defendants, The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, the Bloomin' Apple, LLC, and Heartland Apple, Inc. (collectively "Applebee's"), have operated as a single employer for purposes of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 11. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties
-3-

filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Applebee's. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
•
12. Since at least August 1998, Applebee's has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its restaurant located at 1675 East Riverside Boulevard in Rockford, Illinois, in violation of Sections 703(a)(1) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e(k) and 2(a). Such unlawful employment practices have included: 1) subjecting Charging Parties and a class of female employees to harassment and a hostile work environment because of their sex; 2) retaliating against some Charging Parties and a class offemale employees by subjecting them to different terms and conditions of employment, and to termination; 3) constructively discharging some Charging Parties and a class of female employees; and 4) engaging in a pattern or practice of sex discrimination and retaliation.
13. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Charging Parties, and a class of female employees adversely affected by the discriminatory actions, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 and 13 above were intentional.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 and 13 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Parties and a class of female employees because of their sex.
-4-

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Applebee's, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates because of sex. B. Order Applebee's to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful practices. C. Order Applebee's to make whole Charging Parties and the affected class by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including reinstatement where appropriate. D. Order Applebee's to make whole Charging Parties and the affected class by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs12 and 13 above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Applebee's to make whole Charging Parties and the affected class by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, including emotional pain and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Order Applebee's to pay Charging Parties and the affected class punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
-5-

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. 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.
-6-

Respectfully submitted, Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Diane Smason Supervisory Trial Attorney
Laurie S. Elkin Deborah L. Hamilton Trial Attorneys EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7726
-7-

 
 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 31 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 1 of 9

F'/l IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

~

--.0 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

JUL 2

1 2005

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

) ) )

tl1NfIlrce,.o,~.Sr~AIrNi. ~&:~k~g, CLeRI( TCOIJIfr

Plaintiff,

)

)

SUSAN BRENNEKA, ERIN FOSTER,

)

CHRISTINA JAVID, VICKI MINER,

)

AND TRACEY RANGEL,

)

)

Plaintiffs-Interveners, )

)

CIVIL ACTION NO 04 C 50375

v.

)

)

JUDGE REINHARD

THE BLOOMIN' APPLE ROCKFORD I,

)

LLC, THE BLOOMIN' APPLE, LLC, and

)

HEARTLAND APPLE, INC.

)

)

Defendants.

)

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER This matter came before the Court pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the entry of a Protective Order governing the disclosure of documents and infonnation pertaining to confidential matters. It appears to the Court that entry of this Order is appropriate. In order to preserve and maintain the confidentiality of certain documents and infonnation to be produced in this litigation, The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, The Bloomin' Apple LLC, and Heartland Apple Inc. ("Applebee's") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Plaintiff-Interveners, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, have hereby agreed and stipulated as follows:

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 31 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 2 of 9 •

1) The term "Confidential Information" is defined as any of the following types of information:

a) social security numbers,

b) unlisted home address and telephone numbers,

c) physical and mental health information,

d) trade secrets as defined by the Illinois Trade Secrets Act; and

e) income tax records for all former and current Applebees employees, including class members.

f) 2000 Profit & Loss for the Bloomin' Apple, LLC - Bates 01964

g) 2001 Profit & Loss for the Bloomin' Apple, LLC - Bates 01965

h) 2002 Profit & Loss for the Bloomin' Apple, LLC - Bates D 1966

i) 2000 Profit & Loss for Applebee's 1208 - Bates D1967

j) 2001 Profit & Loss for Applebee's 1208 - Bates D1968

k) 2002 Profit & Loss for Applebee's 1208 - Bates D1969

1) 2003 Income Statement for The Bioomin' Apple, LLC 1208 - Bates 01970-73

m) 2002 Tax Return for the Bioomin' Apple, LLC - Bates D1974-2023

n) 2003 Tax Return for The Bloomin' Apple LLC - Bates D2024-2150

0) The Bloomin' Apple L.L.C. Administrative Manual- Bates D1775-1958

p) The Bloomin' Apple L.L.C. Personnel Manual- Bates D1781-1840

q) The Bioomin' Apple L.L.c. Employee Handbook - Bates D1841-1874

r)

The Bloomin' Apple L.L.c. Accounting Manual- Bates D1875-1914

s)

Human Resource Health and Life Insurance Information - Bates D1915-1946

2

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 31 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 3 of 9

t)

Forms - Bates D1947-1958

u)

Personnel Records - Bates Dl-451, D546-1772, D02151-2283, E1899-2581

v)

2003 Financial Statements for Bloomin' Apple LLC- Bates 2284-2285

2) The term "Confidential Document" refers to a document that contains any of the

above types of information defined as "Confidential Information."

3) As used herein, "disclosure" or "to disclose" shall mean to divulge, reveal,

describe, summarize, paraphrase, quote, transmit, or otherwise communicate

Confidential Information.

Restriction on Use of Confidential Information 4) During the pendency of this litigation, Confidential Information shall be retained

solely in the custody of the parties' attorneys and shall not be placed in the

possession of or disclosed to any other person, except as set forth in paragraph 5

below, as otherwise agreed upon by the parties, or upon leave of Court.

Confidential Information shall be utilized only for the purpose of this litigation

(including any appeals).

5) Confidential Information protected by this Order shall not be disclosed in any

manner, directly or indirectly, to any persons except as follows, provided that any

such person agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of this Order:

a) Confidential Information may be used by the parties, class members,

their attorneys, legal interns, and clerks, paralegals, secretaries, and other

support staff in the employ of or retained by such parties or attorneys for

the purpose of this litigation;

b) Confidential Information may be used in all pretrial discovery

proceedings, such as depositions, and may be filed in Court, such as in

3

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 31 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 4 of 9
support of or in opposition to summary judgment, or other motions without limitations other than those set forth in paragraph 6 or by order of Court; c) Confidential Information may be reviewed by an expert witness or consultant expressly employed or retained by counselor a party to this litigation to whom it is necessary to disclose Confidential Information for the purpose of prosecuting or defending this litigation; d) Confidential Information may be used for motions, at trial, and on appeal of this case, without limitations other than those set forth in paragraph 6 or by order of Court; e) Confidential Information may be disclosed to a court reporter during the course of a deposition. 6) Should Confidential Information become the subject matter of a pleading, motion, or other court filing, either party may seek leave, upon further order of the Court and for good cause shown, to file such Confidential Information under seal. No document or part of a document shall be filed under seal without Court approval, and in the event that a document or part of a document is filed under seal, the filing party shall also prepare a public version of the document with the Confidential Information redacted. A filing party desiring to use the other party's Confidential Information shall give the other party sufficient time to comply with the Court's notice of motion requirements to file a motion seeking leave to require the Confidential Information to be filed under seal. If notice to the other side is impractical under the circumstances, the filing party will take reasonable
4

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 31 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 5 of 9
precautions to exclude Confidential Information or discussion of the particulars of such material until an Order of the Court regarding the filing of the material is issued. Documents shall be filed under normal Court procedures ifthe Confidential Information listed in paragraph 1 has been redacted or otherwise removed from the document. Designation
7) A document or portion of a document that a party determines in good faith to contain Confidential Information as defined in paragraph 1 may be designated as Confidential by (1) stamping the word "CONFIDENTIAL" on the document, (2) otherwise indicating that it contains Confidential Information, (3) employing other means provided by this order, or (4) using any other reasonable method agreed upon by the parties.
8) A party, may on the record of a deposition or oral hearing or by written notice to opposing counsel not later than fourteen (14) days after receipt of the transcript of such deposition or oral hearing, designate any portiones) of the deposition as confidential if the party determines in good faith that the designated portiones) contain(s) Confidential Information as defined in paragraph 1. Until expiration of the above fourteen (14) day period, all transcripts will be deemed "Confidential Documents" under this Protective Order and information therein will be deemed "Confidential Information" under this Protective Order unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. After expiration of this period, any portion of a transcript that has not been designated as Confidential shall not be subject to this Protective Order.
5

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 31 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 6 of 9
9) Nothing shall prevent disclosure of Confidential Information beyond the terms of this Order if all parties consent to such disclosure, or if the Court, after notice to all affected parties, permits such disclosure.
10) If any party wishes to disclose any Confidential Information beyond the terms of paragraphs 5 or 6 of this Order, that party shall provide all other parties with reasonable notice in writing of its requests to disclose the materials. If the parties cannot resolve their disagreement with respect to the disclosure of any Confidential Information or Confidential Documents, then a party may petition the Court for a determination of these issues. Such Confidential Information or Confidential Documents shall remain confidential as stipulated by this Order until the Court rules on the party's specific petition.
Miscellaneous
11) This Order does not limit the right of any party to object to the scope of discovery in this case.
12) This Order does not constitute a determination of the admissibility or evidentiary foundation for the documents or a waiver of any party's objections thereto.
13) Upon the final completion of the litigation (including any appeals) the parties shall, upon request, return to each other or destroy all copies of Confidential Documents. The obligations to keep Confidential Information copied from documents confidential shall continue after the completion of this case.
14) The designation of documents or information as Confidential Information or as Confidential Documents shall not be construed as a waiver of any applicable privilege or other immunities from discovery (including without limitation the
6

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 31 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 7 of 9
attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine) or as a concession by the designating party that such information is relevant or material to any issue or is otherwise discoverable. The inadvertent disclosure by any party of Confidential Information or any Confidential Documents shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of that party's or any other party's obligations under this Order. 15) This Order also shall not prevent the parties from discussing possible redaction of documents and information produced or from petitioning the Court as appropriate with respect to any such redaction. 16) This Order shall continue indefinitely during and after this litigation, unless modified or terminated by order of this Court. 17) The restrictions set forth in any of the preceding paragraphs shall not apply to Confidential Information that was, is, or becomes public knowledge in a manner other than by violation of this Order.
MagiS~l Judge Mahoney
Dated:~, 2005.
7

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 31 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 8 of 9

AGREED:
PLAINTIFF U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

AGREED:
DEFENDANTS THE BLOOMIN' APPLE ROCKFORD I, THE BLOOMIN' APPLE, LLC., HEARTLAND APPLE, INC.

By: Jtht(Hrt~
One onts Attorneys

Dated: _--,-7--fJ_I_tl+I_D_S_ __

I

t

BY:~ kC:Onuffis Attorneys

§S~--~ Dated: _ _:1.-!..+I....:....(L4---L.{

_ _ __

Laurie Elkin Deborah Hamilton Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800

Thomas M Wilde Vedder Price 222 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60601

AGREED:

SUSAN BRENNEKA, ERIN FOSTER, CHRISTINA JAVID, VICKI MINER, AND

vr--- d /1 TRACEY RANJeGE

By:

+

~

7-/)/_oS

Rene Hernandez Law Offices of Rene Hernandez 1625 E. State 8t. Rockford, lL 61104

8

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 31 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that true and correct copies of the foregoing were served on

Ms. Laurie S. Elkin Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2800 500 W. Madison Street Chicago, IL 60661

Mr. Rene Hernandez Law Offices of Rene Hernandez 1625 E. State Street Rockford,IL 61104

by depositing the same in the U.S. mail, first-class postage prepaid, at 222 North LaSalle Street,

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1003 by 5:00 p.m. on July 18, 2005.

CHICAGO/#1395002.1

 
 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 60-2 Filed 02/10/2006 Page 1 of 3

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

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT, )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

SUSAN BRENNEKA, ERIN FOSTER,

)

CHRISTINA JAVID, VICKI MINER, and

)

TRACEY RANGEL,

)

)

Plaintiffs-Interveners,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE BLOOMIN' APPLE ROCKFORD I, LLC, )

THE BLOOMIN' APPLE, LLC, and

)

HEARTLAND APPLE, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 04 C 50375
Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission's ("EEOC") February 2, 2006 Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Third Set

of Request for Admissions. For the reasons stated below, EEOC's Motion is denied.

I. Background

EEOC served sixty-six Requests to Admit on Defendants on January 12,2006 under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Defendants chose not to respond, contending that the

Requests were untimely served because fact discovery closed December 30,2005.

EEOC contends the Requests were timely served because Requests to Admit are not

discovery devices, so fact discovery cut-off dates do not control, citing Hanley v. Como Inn, Inc.

2003 WL 1989607, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2003)(holding that requests for admission are not

1

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 60-2 Filed 02/10/2006 Page 2 of 3
discovery devices but, rather are used to establish truth or genuineness of a matter in order to eliminate need to prove a matter at trial or to limit triable issues of fact). Defendants counter that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that "parties may obtain discovery of one or more of the following methods: ... requests for admission." II. Analysis
While some courts have compelled responses to requests to admit served after the close of discovery, this does not appear to be the trend in the Seventh Circuit. Numerous courts have, in fact, disallowed requests to admit that would require responses beyond the close of discovery. See, e.g., Coram Health Care Corp. v. MCI Worldcom Communications, Inc., No. 01 C 1096, 2001 WL 1467681, at *3 (N.D. III Nov. 15, 2001)(Defendants did not have an opportunity to timely submit their responses within the discovery period, so defendants were under no obligation to respond to the request for admissions); Fahey v. CreoProducts, Inc., No. 96 C 5709, 1998 WL 474114, at *2 (N.D.IlI. Aug. 4, 1998)(request for admissions served one day before discovery cut-off was untimely; defendant need not respond); Biegnaek v. Wilson, 110 F.R.D. 77 (N.D.Il1.l986)("until this court decides to propound a rule specifically dealing with requests to admit, requests to admit should be treated as discovery for purposes of the closing date); Adams v. Budd Co., No. 85-566, 1987 WL 56618, at *2 n.1. (N.D.Ind. Feb. 9, 1987)("Requests for discovery must be made in sufficient time to allow the opposing party to respond before the termination of discovery. Discovery requests not filed in sufficient time to allow the opponent to respond within the discovery period are untimely and the opponent is under no duty to comply with this untimely discovery request.").
Though the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has not set forth a rule specifically
2

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 60-2 Filed 02/10/2006 Page 3 of 3

dealing with requests to admit served beyond the close of fact discovery, Laborers' Pension Fund v. Blackmore Sewer Construction does show that the court is inclined to find that Requests to Admit are subject to the discovery cutoff. 298 F.3d 600,606 n.2 (7th Cir. 2002)("We need not decide today whether requests for admission are a discovery device or should be characterized otherwise. The requests filed here were untimely no matter how they are characterized, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. We note for future consideration that Rule 29 seems to contemplate that requests for admission are a discovery device.").
Thus, in accordance with Seventh Circuit case law, and in the interest ofjudicial efficiency, this court will treat requests to admit as discovery for purposes of fact discovery closure unless a rule is propounded otherwise. EEOC's Motion to Compel Responses to Request to Admit served beyond the court ordered close of fact discovery is denied. III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, EEOC's February 2, 2006 Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Third Set of Request for Admissions is denied.
ENTER:

DATE: February 10,2006

P. MICHAEL MAHONEY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

 
 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 1 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 4 of 18

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

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

SUSAN BRENNEKA, ERIN FOSTER,

)

CHRISTINA JAVID, VICKI MINER,

)

AND TRACEY RANGEL,

)

)

Plaintiffs-In terveners,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE BLOOMIN' APPLE ROCKFORD I, LLC )

)

Defendant

)

Civil Action No. 04 C 50375
Judge Reinhard Magistrate Mahoney

CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION
1. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed this action alleging that Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC ("BIoomin' Apple" or "Defendant") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et~. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a, by subjecting Charging Parties Susan Brenneka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vicki Miner, and Tracy Rangel (collectively "Charging Parties"), and a class of female employees ("Class Members") to harassment because of their sex and retaliation because of their complaints about the harassment. Defendant filed an answer in which it denied the allegations.
2. In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 2 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 5 of 18
comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree"). This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint filed by EEOC.
FINDINGS 3. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties.
b. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of EEOC, Bloomin' Apple, the Charging Parties, the Class Members and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree.
c. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties, the Class Members, and the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: NON-DISCRIMINATION
4. Bloomin' Apple, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting in concert with it are permanently enjoined from: (a) engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of sex; (b) engaging in or being a party to any action, policy or practice that is intended to or is known to them to have the effect of sexually harassing any female employee; (c) creating, facilitating or tolerating the existence of a work environment that is sexually hostile to female employees.

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 3 of 14
Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed OS/22/2007 Page 6 of 18

5. Bloomin' Apple, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all

persons acting in concert with it shall not engage in any form 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.

MONETARY RELIEF

6. Bloomin' Apple shall pay monetary damages totaling $ 125,000 ($25,000 to each)

to Plaintiff-Intervenors and Charging Parties Susan Brenneka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vicki

Miner, and Tracy Rangel. Bloomin' Apple shall pay $65,000 to their attorney Rene Hernandez,

who shall receive only this amount as compensation for his work for these Plaintiff-Intervenors

and who shall not receive, request, or accept any other payment or compensation or

reimbursement of any kind for or related to his representation of these Plaintiff-Interveners in

this matter. The Class Members who did not intervene in this matter shall be compensated as

follows:

Tara Jo Brady:

$15,000

Shiloh Pfeiffer:

$15,000

Jennifer Corcoran: $15,000

Tanya Sarrels:

$15,000

Heather Lindfors: $ 4,500

Ashley Spindler: $15,000

Jyll Myers:

$15,000

Paige Ramlow:

$ 500

Heather Cyrus:

$15,000

7. EEOC will mail a copy of the Release Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A)

to each Plaintiff-Intervenor and each Class Member. Each Plaintiff-Intervenor and each Class

Member must execute and return a release agreement to EEOC. EEOC will send to Bloomin'

Apple the executed release agreements it receives from the Plaintiff-Intervenors and Class

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 4 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed OS/22/2007 Page 7 of 18
Members. 8. Within five (5) business days after receipt by Defendant of a signed Release
Agreement, Bloomin' Apple shall issue and mail by certified mail to each Plaintiff-Intervenor or Class Member a cashier's check in the amount set forth above in ~ 6. EEOC shall provide Defendant with the current address for each Charging Party and Class Member. Defendant will also send a copy of each check to EEOC.
POSTING OF NOTICE 9. Within five (5) business days following entry ofthis Decree, Bloomin' Apple shall post a copy ofthe Notice (attached hereto as Exhibit B) to this Decree in its restaurant in Rockford, IL, in a location customarily used to communicate with employees. The Notice shall remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Bloomin' Apple shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Bloomin' Apple shall certify to EEOC in writing within ten (l0) business days after entry of the Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. Bloomin' Apple shall permit a representative of EEOC to enter Bloomin' Apple's premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours without prior notice.
RECORD KEEPING 10. Bloomin' Apple shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by EEOC records (including names, social security numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers) of each employee or applicant who complains of sex harassment or retaliation. Bloomin' Apple shall maintain such records whether or not any such report or complaint is made formally or informally. Such records shall include the name of the complainant, the date of the report or complaint, what was alleged, the name(s) of any witnesses, what actions, if any, Bloomin' Apple

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 5 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05122/2007 Page 8 of 18
took to resolve the complaint, and the resolution of the report or complaint. 11. Bloomin' Apple shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 10
above available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after EEOC so requests. In addition, Bloomin' Apple shall require personnel within its employ whom EEOC reasonably requests for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree to cooperate with EEOC and to be interviewed.
REPORTING 12. Bloomin' Apple shall furnish to EEOC the following written reports semiannually for a period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after entry of the Decree. The final report shall be due twenty-three (23) months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain: (a) A summary of the information recorded by Bloomin' Apple pursuant to Paragraph 10; (b) A certification by Bloomin' Apple that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 9, above, remained posted during the entire six (6) month period preceding the report.
TRAINING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF POLICY AGAINST HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION
13. During each of the two (2) years covered by this Decree, all of Bloomin' Apple's employees, including all managers, supervisors, and hourly employees, shall participate in an annual in-person training session by a trainer paid for by Bloomin' Apple and approved by EEOC regarding sex harassment, retaliation, and Bloomin' Apple's policies regarding such discrimination. The three owners of Bloomin' Apple, Andy Robertson, Marianne Allardice and

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 6 of 14
Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 9 of 18
Kevin Allardice, shall also receive annual training regarding the same topics although that training may be done via a web-based training program or a video presentation. The first training shall take place within ninety (90) days of entry of this Decree.
14. Bloomin' Apple shall obtain EEOC's approval of its proposed trainer prior to the training session. Bloomin' Apple shall submit the name, address, telephone number, resume and training proposal of the proposed trainer, including all proposed training materials, to EEOC at least fifteen (15) business days prior to the proposed date(s) of the training. EEOC shall have five (5) business days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer. In the event EEOC does not approve Bloomin' Apple's designated trainer, Bloomin' Apple shall have five (5) business days to identify an alternate trainer. EEOC shall have five (5) business days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the alternate trainer. If the parties cannot through this process agree on a trainer, then they may seek the Court's assistance under ~ 17.
15. Bloomin' Apple shall certify to EEOC in writing within five (5) business days after each 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) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance. Bloomin' Apple shall also provide EEOC with any and all copies of pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written material(s) provided to the participants ofthe training session(s).
16. Within twenty-eight (28) calendar days of the date of the entry of this Consent Decree, Bloomin' Apple shall distribute to all of its employees, managers, and owners, a policy against harassment and retaliation which complies with Title VII and which provides for a

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 7 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 10 of 18
complaint process and mechanism for responding to such complaints. Within twenty-eight calendar days of the date of the entry of this Decree, Bloomin' Apple shall also post a copy of this policy in a location in the restaurant customarily used to communicate with employees. The inclusion of this paragraph in the Decree does not represent the Court's or EEOC's approval of Bloomin' Apple's policy.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 17. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) ofthe Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged noncomplying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 18. All provisions ofthis Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end ofthe two (2) year period, any disputes under ~17, above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree) until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 19. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 6, each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, attorney's fees and costs.

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Paqe 8 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page l1 of 18
20. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, managers, assigns, and successors of Bloomin' Apple. 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.
21. If any provision(s) of the Decree are found to be unlawful, only such provision(s) shall be severed, and the remainder of the Decree shall remain in full force and effect.
22. When this Decree requires certification by Bloomin' Apple of any fact(s), such certification shall be made under oath or penalty of perjury by an officer or management employee of Bloomin' Apple.
23. When this Decree requires the submission by Bloomin' Apple of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to EEOC, they shall be mailed to: Bloomin' Apple Title VII Settlement, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. When this Decree requires submission by EEOC of materials to Bloomin Apple, they shall be mailed to: John Dougherty, 252 N. Montclair Avenue, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137.

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 9 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 12 of 18

ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR:
For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
RONALD COOPER General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7726
sl John C. Hendrickson JOHN C. HENDRICKSON Regional Attorney
s/Diane 1. Smason DIANE I. SMASON Supervisory Trial Attorney

For Bloomin' Apple, Rockford I, LLC Thomas Wilde Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 Chicago,IL 60601
sl Thomas Wilde THOMAS WILDE, Esq.

s/Laurie Elkin LAURIE ELKIN Trial Attorney
sl Deborah Hamilton DEBORAH HAMILTON Trial Attorney

For Plaintiffs-Interveners Susan Brenneka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vicki Miner, and Tracy Rangel
slRene Hernandez Rene Hernandez, Esq.

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 10 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 13 of 18
Tr DATE: )11 ~ :2 2-067
EN/JfJ-f6, ~~
The Honorable Judge Philip G. Reinhard United States Senior District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 11 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 14 of 18
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 12 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 15 of 18
RELEASE AGREEMENT
In consideration for $_ _ _ paid to me by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC., in connection with the resolution of EEOC v. The Bloomin' Apple Rockford, I, LLC, Case No. 04 C 50375, I waive my right to recover for any claims of sexual harassment and/or retaliation under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et~. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a, that I had against The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in EEOC's complaint in EEOC v. The Bloomin' Apple Rockford, I, LLC, Case No. 04 C 50375.

Date

Signature

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 13 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 16 of 18
EXHIBITB

Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 128 Filed OS/29/2007 Page 14 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-50375 Document 125 Filed OS/22/2007 Page 17 of 18

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in
EEOC v The Bloomin' Apple Rockford, 1. LLC, Case No. 04 C 50375, resolving a lawsuit filed
by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against The Bloomin Apple, Rockford I, LLC.

In its suit, EEOC alleged that Bloomin' Apple, Rockford I, LLC discriminated against female employees by subjecting them to a sexually hostile work environment and retaliating against them when they complained about it. Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC filed an answer in which it denied the allegations.

To resolve the case, Bloomin Apple Rockford I, LLC, and EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which provides, among other things, that:

1) Bloomin' Apple, Rockford I, LLC will pay monetary relief totaling $300,000 to a class of female employees and their attorney;

2) Bloomin' Apple, Rockford I, LLC is enjoined from discriminating against women on the basis of sex and from subjecting women to sexual harassment;

3) Bloomin' Apple, Rockford I, LLC is enjoined from retaliating against any person because (s)he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed an Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and

5) Bloomin' Apple, Rockford I, LLC will provide mandatory training to all employees and the owners regarding sexual harassment, retaliation, and its policies regarding such discrimination.

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 contact EEOC at (312) 353-8195. EEOC charges no fees and has a TTD number.

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 or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance

with its terms may be directed to: Bloomin' Apple Title VII Settlement, EEOC, 500 West

Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661.

Jf(~ ~j~ z.~o 7

f!tfp~. ~~---

Date

/

Judge Pfiilip G. Reinhard

United States District Court

 
 EEOC v. Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division January 24, 2006, Decided ; January 24, 2006, Filed Case No. 04 C 50375

Reporter: 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2708 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT, OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, SUSAN BRENNEKA, ERIN FOSTER, CHRISTINA JAVID, VICKI MINER, and TRACEY RANGEL, Plaintiffs-Interveners, v. THE BLOOMIN' APPLE ROCKFORD I, LLC, THE BLOOMIN' APPLE, LLC, and HEARTLAND APPLE, INC., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Motion denied by United States EEOC v. Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5185 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 10, 2006)

crystalize the issues before the court. Counsels should meet prior to February 8th and additionally meet in the federal courthouse on February 8th at 1:30 p.m. The court will meet with the parties at 2:30 p.m. on February 8, 2006. Counsels should be prepared to address each unresolved discovery request specifically. In order to aid counsels in narrowing the issues, the court will briefly address some of the general concerns raised by counsels during the briefing of EEOC's Motion.
I. Introduction

Counsel: [*1] For -- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff: Diane Ilene Smason, John C. Hendrickson, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL; Laurie S. Elkin, Deborah Lois Hamilton, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL.
For Susan Brennecka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vickie Miner, Tracy Rangel, Petitioners: Rene Hernandez, Attorney at Law, Rockford, IL; Ryan M Holmes, Law office of Rene Hernandez, P.C., Rockford, IL.
For The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc, Defendants: Thomas Michael Wilde, Alison J Maki, Thomas G. Abram, Vedder, Price Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C., Chicago, IL.

The court looks to EEOC's March 2, 2005 First Amended Complaint and Defendants' Answer thereto to help define the proper scope of discovery. EEOC's Complaint is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It alleges unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation, adversely affecting a class of female employees. More specifically, the EEOC alleges that "Applebee's has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its restaurant located at 1675 East Riverside Boulevard in Rockford, Illinois" by: (1) subjecting female employees to a hostile work environment; (2) retaliating against some female employees by subjecting [*3] them to different terms and conditions of employment/termination; (3) constructively discharging some female employees; and (4) engaging in a pattern or practice of sex discrimination and retaliation. (Complaint, at 4).

Judges: P. MICHAEL MAHONEY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Opinion by: P. MICHAEL MAHONEY
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Magistrate Judge
P. Michael Mahoney
This matter is before the court on United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") November 17, 2005 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses. For the reasons stated below, most of EEOC's Motion is carried until the next hearing date of February 8, 2006. Counsels are to engage in a Local Rule 37.2 conference to further [*2]

Three Defendants are named in EEOC's Complaint: The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, The Bloomin' Apple, LLC, and Heartland Apple, Inc. Each Defendant is alleged to be an employer within the context of Title VII. The Bloomin' Apple, LLC, was formed in 1998 by four individuals (Williams, Robertson, K. Allardice, and M. Allardice) and is the sole member of The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, which owns the Applebee's restaurant located on East Riverside Drive that is referenced in EEOC's Complaint alleging unlawful employment practices. Heartland Apple, Inc. was incorporated by three individuals (Robertson, K. Allardice, and M. Allardice) in 2002, and it owns ten Applebee's restaurants located in central Illinois and Iowa. Defendants deny that The Bloomin' Apple, LLC and Heartland Apple, Inc. are "employers" within the meaning of Title VII, and deny that The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, The Bloomin' Apple, LLC, and Heartland Apple, Inc. operate as a single employer.

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2708, *4

Page 2 of 4

[*4] All three Defendants also deny EEOC's allegations of have enough information to decide under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26

unlawful employment practices (Answer, at 5) and raise and 37 if the discovery should be allowed. Generally, parties

additional affirmative defenses, including that "pursuant to its may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

established sexual harassment policy and procedures, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Fed. R.

Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct Civ. P. 26. Relevant information need not be admissible at

promptly any sexually harassing behavior" and that "Charging trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to

Parties' unreasonably failed to take advantage of those the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P.

preventative and corrective opportunities." (Answer, at 6).

26(b)(1). However, the court has authority to limit discovery

that is unreasonably cumulative [*7] or unduly burdensome

II. Discovery Requests at Issue

or expensive. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 37; Patterson v. Avery

The court finds it will be necessary to work through the parties' discovery disputes one request at a time, rather than providing a blanket Order granting or denying EEOC's Motion to compel responses generally. The discovery requests that are the subject of this Motion were sent in two rounds. On February 8, 2005, nearly one year ago, Defendants were served with EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents (22 Requests) and First Set of Interrogatories (23

Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681-82 (7th Cir. 2002). This requires the court to balance the potentiality of the requests leading to discoverable material with the burden of production. After input form the parties on February 8, 2006, if necessary, the court will be able to decide the balance of the Motion based on a balance of EEOC's need for requested items or information and the Defendants' burden of production.

Interrogatories). EEOC served a Second Request for III. Analysis Production of Documents on October 17, 2005 (10 Requests).

Defendants have responded to both rounds of discovery by The court can offer the following opinions to aid the parties as

EEOC. However, being unsatisfied by Defendants' they attempt to resolve their discovery disputes. First, the

Responses, the [*5] EEOC moved to compel full responses to court will discuss the proper scope of discovery in light of

both rounds of discovery on November 17, 2005. 1

EEOC's attempts to pierce an alleged corporate veil between

The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC and The Bloomin'

EEOC's Motion to Compel does not clearly delineate which Apple, LLC or Heartland Apple, Inc. Second, the court will

Production Requests and Interrogatories it believes address the implications on discovery arising from EEOC's

Defendants have failed to respond to sufficiently. Several attempt to establish vicarious/affiliate liability and

discovery requests are discussed generally in EEOC's Motion, Defendants' assertion of the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative but the prayer for relief seems to compel responses to all defense. propounded discovery. Argument offered in support of

EEOC's Motion to Compel is also not very specific, failing to A. Piercing the corporate veil

tie relevance to specific requests for documents or

information.

In this case, EEOC has alleged that [*8] The Bloomin' Apple

Rockford I, LLC, The Bloomin' Apple, LLC, and Heartland

The court has gleaned from its Motion that EEOC believes Apple, Inc. have operated as a single employer for purposes

that Defendants have improperly denied it discovery of Title VII. Defendants' have denied this allegation. Based on

regarding two main issues: (1) whether The Bloomin' Apple, this alone, it seems that there has to be some discovery

LLC can be held liable for the discrimination at issue because allowed as to the relationship between the three entities

it failed to train employees about anti-sexual harassment named as Defendants.

policy and, further, its employees failed to properly supervise

the General Manager whose conduct is at issue in this [*6] case; and (2) whether it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil between The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC and The Bloomin' Apple, LLC or Heartland Apple, Inc. Exactly how requests for items like "quarterly financial statements," "documents showing T.S.S.O. North, Inc. has signed a lease," and "a list of all employees of Defendants" relates to the above areas of discovery or the

However, EEOC also appears to seek discovery about entities that are not named as Defendants. For example, EEOC seeks "a complete list of all of the individuals working at the restaurants in which the Bloomin' Apple LLC was the sole member." This request would require employee lists from the Bloomin' Apple Rockford II, the Bloomin' Apple Janesville, the Bloomin' Apple Freeport, the Bloomin' Apple Beloit, and the Bloomin' Apple Springfield.

Complaint/Answer is less than clear.

In addition, EEOC seeks documents containing any

The court cannot decide EEOC's Motion based on agreements between the Defendants and Applebee's

generalities. To decide EEOC's Motion, the court must

1 Fact discovery closed in this case on December 30, 2005.

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2708, *8

Page 3 of 4

International and the corporate minutes, records, and filings Rockford I, and to train all employees about the restaurant's

from 2002 to present, but EEOC defines Defendants as "The anti-sexual harassment policies, does constitute "directing" a

Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, The Bloomin' Apple, LLC, discriminatory act, practice, or policy under Papa.

and Heartland Apple, Inc., their subsidiaries or parent companies, any company for which any of the named entities serves as a stock holding [*9] company, their predecessors, and any current or former officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys or other persons acting or purporting to act on any of the Defendant's behalf including T.S.S.O. North, Inc." (Pl.s' Mot., at Ex. 4, p.2).

Though it is evident that EEOC seeks an order compelling information that could bolster a claim that Bloomin' Apple, LLC is vicariously liable due to ineffective anti-sexual harassment policies or practices, the court can leave aside whether or not this is an appropriate application of Papa for the time being. Defendants may have already opened the door to the same [*11] discovery Plaintiff seeks. To the extent that

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), discovery is limited to matters EEOC's propounded requests explore how the same

relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Discovery is not supervisors that supervised the General Manager of the

permitted as to potential additional claims or defenses absent Bloomin' Apple Rockford I handled other restaurants' General

a court order expanding discovery. 2 Because EEOC has not Managers and sexual harassment issues, the discovery is

asserted any claims against Bloomin' Apple Rockford II, the relevant to Defendants' Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.

Bloomin' Apple Janesville, the Bloomin' Apple Freeport, the Bloomin' Apple Beloit, the Bloomin' Apple Springfield, or T.S.S.O. North, Inc., it is difficult for the court to understand how ordering discovery related to these entities is proper with regard to piercing the corporate veil.

Defendants have raised the issue of the effectiveness of their harassment policies and practices by asserting as an affirmative defense that "pursuant to its established sexual harassment policy and procedures, Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually

B. Affiliate/Vicarious [*10] Liability & the harassing behavior" and that "Charging Parties' unreasonably

Faragher/Ellerth Affirmative Defense

failed to take advantage of those preventative and corrective

opportunities." (Def.s' Answer, at 6). This type of defense has

EEOC seeks information and documents in support of its been characterized as the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative

claim of vicarious/affiliate liability on the part of Bloomin' defense. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775,

Apple, LLC. Depending on EEOC's success with piercing the 118 S. Ct. 2275, 141 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1998); Burlington Indus.,

corporate veil, EEOC may be required to demonstrate, under Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S. Ct. 2257, 141 L. Ed. 2d

Papa, that Bloomin' Apple, LLC is responsible for the discrimination at issue because it "directed the discriminatory act, practice, or policy" at issue. Papa v. Katy Indus., Inc., 166 F.3d 937, 941 (7th Cir. 1999). EEOC claims that the Bloomin' Apple, LLC's failure to properly supervise the General

633 (1998). 3 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, parties are entitled to discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim [*12] or defense of any party. Thus, the court finds that the proper scope of discovery in this case does include whether or not Defendants' policy was effective.

Manager of the Bloomin' Apple

2 It is unlikely that the court would now expand the scope of discovery, especially given the fact that fact discovery is now closed.
3 In Faragher, the Court held that an employer may be held "vicariously liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor, but subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct as well as that of a plaintiff victim." 524 U.S. at 780. In Ellerth, the Court held that:
An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence. . . . The defense comprises two necessary elements: (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 or to avoid harm otherwise. While proof that an employer had promulgated an antiharassment policy with complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the employment circumstances may appropriately be addressed in any case when litigating the first element of the defense. And while proof that an employee failed to fulfill the corresponding obligation of reasonable care to avoid harm is not limited to showing any unreasonable failure to use any complaint procedure provided by the employer, a demonstration of such failure will normally suffice to satisfy the employer's burden under the second element of the defense. No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor's harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2708, *13

Page 4 of 4

[*13] The court also finds that EEOC has shown that requests. The court will meet with the parties on any

discovery regarding the effectiveness of Defendants' policy remaining [*14] specific discovery requests on February 8,

should not be limited to only Bloomin' Apple Rockford I. 2006 at 2:30 p.m. The court requests that Plaintiff file a

There is comparative value in examining the effectiveness of complete copy of the Document Requests, Interrogatories,

the policies at other Bloomin' Apple restaurants given that: (1) and Responses that counsels continue to believe are in dispute

all of the restaurants in which The Bloomin' Apple, LLC is by February 7, 2006.

the sole member have the same corporate and operational

structure whereby a General Manager is supervised by an IV. Conclusion

employee or employees of The Bloomin' Apple, LLC; (2) the same policy against harassment was in effect at all of the restaurants in which The Bloomin' Apple, LLC was the sole member; and (3) the employees of The Bloomin' Apple, LLC had the responsibility to monitor compliance with its antiharassment policies.

For the reasons stated above, EEOC's November 17, 2005 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses is continued until the court can hold a Discovery Hearing set for 2:30 p.m., February 8, 2006. Plaintiff is to file a copy of disputed Document Requests, Interrogatories, and Responses by February 7, 2006. Counsel

C. Other Discovery Concerns

should make sure a hard copy of the same is in the court's

hands by that same date.

The court is not able to address other discovery concerns

raised by the parties without more information. Armed with ENTER:

the above opinions of the court on the general discovery issues raised by Plaintiff and Defendants, the court is P. MICHAEL MAHONEY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

confident that counsels can work together to narrow or

eliminate any remaining disputed discovery

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: January 24, 2006

as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment.524 U.S. at 765.

 
 · LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

MAHONEY, PROTO, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CMIECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 (Rockford)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04-cv-50375

EEOC, et al v. Bloomin' Apple Rkfd, et al Assigned to: Honorable Philip G. Reinhard Referred to: Honorable P. Michael Mahoney Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 0910912004 Date Terminated: 0512912007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U. S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Diane Ilene Smason United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: diane. smason@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie S. Elkin Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7259 Email: laurie.elkin@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah Lois Hamilton Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312)353-7722 Email: deborah.hamilton@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory M. Gochanour

1 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

v.
Petitioner Susan Brennecka
Petitioner Erin Foster
Petitioner

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886-9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 1210912004
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
represented by Rene Hernandez Attorney at Law 1625 East State Street Rockford, IL 61104 (815) 387-0261 Email: rensone@ao1.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan M Holmes Law office of Rene Hernandez, P.C. 1625 East State Street Rockford, IL 61104 (815) 387-0261
represented by Rene Hernandez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan M Holmes (See above for address)

2 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

Christina Javid
Petitioner Vickie Miner
Petitioner Tracy Rangel
v.
Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC

represented by Rene Hernandez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan M Holmes (See above for address)
represented by Rene Hernandez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan M Holmes (See above for address)
represented by Rene Hernandez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan M Holmes (See above for address)
represented by Thomas Michael Wilde Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 609-7500 Email: twilde@vedderprice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison J Maki Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 609-7500 Email: amaki@vedderprice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

Defendant Bloomin' Apple LLC
Defendant Heartland Apple Inc

Mary Claire O'Neil Littler Mendelson, P.C. 200 North LaSalle Street Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 609-7500 Email: moneil@littler.com TERMINATED: 0610612005
Thomas G. Abram Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 609-7500 Email: tabram@vedderprice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas Michael Wilde (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison J Maki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Claire O'Neil (See above for address) TERMINATED: 0610612005
Thomas G. Abram (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas Michael Wilde (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison J Maki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Claire O'Neil (See above for address) TERMINATED: 0610612005

4 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

Date Filed 0910912004
0910912004 0912212004
0912212004 0912212004 0912212004 0912212004 0912212004 0912412004 1011812004 1111212004
1111512004
1111512004 1111712004

Thomas G. Abram (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

# Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of John C.
-
Hendrickson, Gregory M. Gochanour, Laurie S. Elkin as attorney(s) for plaintiff (
o summons(es) issued.) (Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (db) (Entered:
0911012004)

THIS matter is referred to the Hon. P. Michael Mahoney pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 11 (d). (db) (Entered: 0911012004)

2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Susan Brennecka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid,
-
Vickie Miner, Tracy Rangel by Rene Hernandez, Ryan M Holmes Gat) (Entered:
0912212004)

-3 MOTION by Susan Brennecka to intervene; notice of motion Gat) (Entered: 0912212004)

4 MOTION by Erin Foster to intervene; notice of motion Gat) (Entered:
-
0912212004)

5 MOTION by Christina Javid to intervene; notice of motion Gat) (Entered:
-
0912212004)

-6 MOTION by Vickie Miner to intervene; notice of motion Gat) (Entered: 0912212004)

7 MOTION by Tracy Rangel to intervene; notice of motion Gat) (Entered:
-
0912212004)

8
-

Amended notice of motion by Susan Brennecka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid,

Vickie Miner, Tracy Rangel Gat) (Entered: 0912412004)

9 WAIVER of service of summons as to Bloomin' Apple Rkfd, Bloomin' Apple
-
LLC, Heartland Apple Inc sent on 9114/04 Gmm (Entered: 1011812004)

-10 MINUTE ORDER of 11112/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Status hearing set for 11117/04 at 1:30pm. Enter order nunc pro tunc October 6,2004:
Petition/motions to intervene are granted [7-1], [6-1], [5-1], [4-1], [3-1]. no notices required Gat) (Entered: 1111512004)

11 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Bloomin' Apple Rkfd, Bloomin' Apple LLC,
-
Heartland Apple Inc by Thomas Michael Wilde, Thomas G. Abram, Mary Claire
O'Neil Gat) (Entered: 1111512004)

12 ANSWER by Bloomin' Apple Rkfd, Bloomin' Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc
-
complaint [1-1]; notice offiling Gat) (Entered: 1111512004)

SCHEDULE set on 11117/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Status hearing held. Parties to hold FRCP 26(f) conference. Case management order to be submitted

5 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

12/0612004 12/0912004
1211512004
1211512004 0211512005 0211512005 03/0212005 03/0212005 0311612005 0312912005 0412912005 0511112005 06/0612005

on 12114/04. Initial Pretrial conference set to 1:30 12115/04 No notice (gIg) (Entered: 1111712004)
13 agreed MOTION by - EEOC to substitute attorney; notice offiling Gat) (Entered:
-
12/0712004)
-14 MINUTE ORDER of 12/9/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiffs agreed motion to substitute counsel is granted [13-1]. Gregory Gochanour given leave to withdraw and Diane Smason and Deborah Hamilton given leave to file their appearance. mailed notice Gat) (Entered: 1211012004)
SCHEDULE set on 12115/04 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Initial Pretrial conference held. Case management order approved. FRCP 26(a)(I) disclosure due 1117/05. Amendment of pleadings due 2115/05. Fact Discovery ordered closed on 8/30/05. Dispositive motions due 9/30/05. FRCP 26(a)(2) reserved. Parties to get one deposition each at 6 hours. Discovery conference to set mediation set for 1:30 4115/05 . No notice (gIg) (Entered: 1211512004)
15 Parties proposed case management order by plaintiff, defendant, petitioner Gat)
-
(Entered: 1211612004)
-16 MOTION by Plaintiff - US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for leave to file first amended complaint instanter Gat, ) (Entered: 0211512005)
17 NOTICE by US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for presentment of
-
motion to file instanter 16 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 31212005 at 01:30 PM. Gat, ) (Entered: 0211512005)
18 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Motion to file amended
-
complaint instanter 16 is granted. Response due 3123/05. No notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 03/0212005)
19 first AMENDED complaint by US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
-
against The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc; Jury DemandGat, ) (Entered: 03/0212005)
-20 ANSWER to first amended complaint by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc; notice offilingGat, ) (Entered: 0311612005)
21 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to request of
-
counsel, Discovery Hearing reset for 412912005 at 01 :30 PM. Telephoned notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0312912005)
-22 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery hearing held on 412912005. Discovery Hearing set for 612912005 at 01 :30 PM. No notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0412912005)
23 MOTION by Defendants The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple
-
LLC, Heartland Apple Inc to substitute appearance of counsel Gat, ) (Entered: 0511112005)
-24 MINUTE entry Defendant's motion to substitute appearance of Alison J. Maki for Mary C. O'Neil 23 is granted. docketing mailed notice Gat, ) (Entered: 06/0612005)

6 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

0611612005 0611612005 0612912005 0711912005 0711912005 0712012005 0712112005 0712712005 1010312005
1010312005 1010612005 1010612005

25 MOTION by Defendants The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple
-
LLC, Heartland Apple Inc to compel Tracey Rangel's written discovery responses Gat, ) (Entered: 0611612005)
26 NOTICE by all defendants for presentment of motion to compel 25 before
-
Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 612912005 at 01 :30 PM. Gat, ) (Entered: 0611612005)
27 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's Motion to
-
compel 25 is withdrawn. Discovery hearing held on 612912005. Discovery Hearing set for 712712005 at 01:30 PM. Judge's staff mailed notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0612912005)
28 agreed MOTION by Defendants The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin'
-
Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc for entry of protective order Gat, ) (Entered: 0711912005)
29 NOTICE by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC,
-
Heartland Apple Inc for presentment of motion for protective order 28 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 712712005 at 01:30 PM. Gat, ) (Entered: 0711912005)
-31 agreed PROTECTIVE Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 712012005:Gat, ) (Entered: 0712112005)
30 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Agreed motion for entry of
-
protective order 28 is granted. Enter Protective Order. Telephonic discovery conference set for 712712005 at 11 :30 AM. judge's staff mailed notice Gat, ) (Entered: 0712112005)
-32 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 712712005. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 1013112005. Dispositive Motions due by 121112005. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 1012412005 at 09:30 AM. Telephoned notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0712712005)
-33 MOTION by Defendants The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Heartland Apple Inc, Bloomin' Apple LLC to compel production ofplaintiffs-interveners' missing
documents (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# ~ Exhibit 2# l Exhibit 3#:1: Exhibit 4# ~ Exhibit 5# 2 Exhibit 6# 1 Exhibit 7)(Maki, Alison) Modified on 10/412005 Gat, ).
(Entered: 1010312005)
-34 NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion to compel, 33 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1011412005 at 01:30 PM. (Maki, Alison) Modified on 10/412005 Gat, ). (Entered: 1010312005)
-35 Defendant's Amended NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion to compel, 33 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1012612005 at 01:30 PM. (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1010612005)
-36 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Due to the court's schedule, Noticed motion and Discovery Hearing reset for 1012612005 at 01 :30 PM. Mailed notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 1010612005)

7 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

1011712005 1011712005 1012612005
1111712005 1111712005 1112212005 11/3012005
11/3012005 1212112005 12/3012005 12/3012005 01/0912006

37 MOTION by Defendants The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple
-
LLC, Heartland Apple Inc to compel Plaintiffs-Interveners' responses to
Defendants' second set ofdiscovery requests. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 -
6)(Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1011712005)
-38 NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion to compel, 37 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1012612005 at 01:30 PM. (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1011712005)
39 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's Motion to
-
compel 33 is granted. Affidavit and resposne due 1112/05. Defendant's Motion to compel 37 is granted. Verifications to be provided by 11/9105. Plaintiff given to 11/9105 to respond to outstandng discovery or the court may entertain a motion to dismiss. Discovery hearing held on 1012612005. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 12/3012005. Discovery Hearing to set dispositive motions set for 11412006 at 01:30 PM. No notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 1012612005)
40 MOTION by Plaintiff - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
-
compel (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 1111712005)
-41 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion 40 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1112512005 at 01 :30 PM. (Hamilton, Deborah) Text Modified on 1111812005 Gat, ). (Entered: 1111712005)
-42 Re-Notice ofMotion to Compel NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion to compel 40 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 11/3012005 at 01 :30 PM. (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 1112212005)
43 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney :Defendant's Motion to compel
-
40 is taken under advisement. Set deadlines as to motion to compel 40 : Responses due by 1212112005 Replies due by 111112006. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Discovery conference reset to 2/8/06 at 1:30 pm. Mailed notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 1113012005)
Set/Reset Hearings Discovery Hearing reset for 2/812006 at 01 :30 PM. (gIg, ) (Entered: 1113012005)
44 RESPONSE by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC,
-
Heartland Apple Inc in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff - U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to compel 40 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A#
~ Exhibit B)(Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1212112005)
-45 MOTION by Defendants The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc to compel production ofMcAfoos Day Planners
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - 2# ~ Exhibit 3 - 8)(Maki, Alison) (Entered:
12/3012005)
46 NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion to compel 45
-
before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 111312006 at 01 :30 PM. (Maki, Alison) Hearing Date (year) Modified on 1/312006 Gat, ). (Entered: 1213012005)
-47 AmendedNOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion to compel 45 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 111812006 at 01:30 PM.

8 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

0111112006 0111812006 0112012006 0112012006 0112412006 0112412006
02/0212006 02/0212006 02/0612006 02/0712006

(Maki, Alison) (Entered: 01/0912006)
48 REPLY by - US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionin Support of
-
MOTION by Plaintiff - US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
compel 40 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit exhibitsl-3# ~ Exhibit
exhibits4-6)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 0111112006)
-49 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's Motion to compel 45 is granted in part. Day planners to be produced for attorneys' eyes only. Counsel to mark pages to be shown. If there is a disagreement, the court will make an in camera inspection. Legible copies to be produced. (gIg, ) (Entered: 0111812006)
-50 MOTION by Defendants The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc for leave to file surreply instanter. (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 0112012006)
-51 NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion for leave to file 50 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 112512006 at 01 :30 PM. (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 0112012006)
-52 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Defendants' 1120/06 Motion for leave to file surreply 50 is considered presented and denied. The court strikes the hearing for presentment of Motion set 1125/06 at 1:30pm. judge's staff mailed notice Gat, ) (Entered: 0112412006)
53 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on
-
112412006: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, EEOC's 11117/05 Motion to compel production of documents and interrogatory responses 40 is continued until the court can hold a discovery hearing set for 2:30pm, 2/8/06. Plaintiff is to file a copy of remaining unresolved document requests, interrogatories, and responses by 2/7/06. [For further detail
see separate order]judge's staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER)Gat,) (Entered: 0112512006)
-54 MOTION by Plaintiff - US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Responses To PlaintiffEEOC's Third Set ofRequests for Admission
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# ~ Exhibit Exhibits2&4# l Exhibit
Exhibit3)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 02/0212006)
55 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion to
-
compel, 54 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 2/812006 at 01 :30 PM. (Hamilton, Deborah) [attached document states 2/8/05] Modified on 21212006 Gat, ). (Entered: 02/0212006)
-56 STATEMENT by Plaintiff - US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission order on motion to compel, memorandum opinion and order"" 53 Plaintiff EEOC's List of Unresolved Document Production Requests Filed In Accord With
Judge Mahoney's January 24,2006 Order (Attachments: # 1 # ~)(Hamilton,
Deborah) (Entered: 02/0612006)
57 RESPONSE by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC,
-
Heartland Apple Inc in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff - US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Responses To PlaintiffEEOC's

9 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

02/0812006 02/0812006
0211012006
03/0712006 03/0712006 0311512006 04/0312006 05/3012006 06/0212006 06/0712006

Third Set ofRequests for Admission 54 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Maki,
Alison) (Entered: 02/0712006)
58 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery hearing held on
-
21812006. FRCP 26(a)(2) closed. Discovery ISettlement Conference set for 4/312006 at 10:00 AM. Real parties in interest to be present. (gIg, ) (Entered: 02/0812006)
59 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: EEOC's 11117105 Motion to
-
compel 40 is granted in part and denied in part as stated in open court. Defendants given until 312106 to produce documents agreed upon by counsels in LR 37.2 conference, until 2123/06 to produce under Second Request for Production, Nos. 8-9 (Heartland, Inc documents), and until 2123/06 to supplement Interrogatory #3 at least with regard to the Area Director and with regard to any other updates needed to comply with Rule 26 obligations. EEOC's 212106 Motion to compel responses 54 is taken under advisement. Magistrate Judge will rule. judge's staff mailed notice Gat, ) (Entered: 02/0812006)
-60 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, Signed by Judge P. Michael Mahoney on 211012006: For the reasons stated on the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, EEOC's 212106 Motion to compel responses to plaintiffs third set of request for admissions 54 is denied. [For further detail see separate order.]judge's
staff mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION &
ORDER)Gat, ) (Entered: 0211012006)
-61 MOTION by Defendants The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple
LLC, Heartland Apple Inc to exclude putative class member (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1)(Maki, Alison) (Entered: 03/0712006)
-62 NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief61 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 311512006 at 01:30 PM. (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 03/0712006)
-63 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's Motion to exclude 61 is denied in part. Because of the failure of person to show up at her deposition, she is precluded from offering testimony. Parties to submit 3 page settlement document to chamber for settlement conference by 3/31/06. (gIg, ) (Entered: 0311512006)
64 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Settlement conference held on
-
41312006. Dispositive Motions due by 5/3112006. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 61212006 at 09:45 AM. (gIg, ) (Entered: 04/0412006)
-65 MOTION by Defendants The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc for extension of time to file Dispositive Motions (Unopposed) (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 05/3012006)
66 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's Motion for
-
extension of time 65 is granted. Telephnoic Discovery hearing held on 61212006. Dispositive Motions due by 6/712006. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 611212006 at 09:45 AM. Telephoned notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 06/0212006)
-67 MOTION by Defendant Heartland Apple Inc for summary judgment (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)

10 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0712006 06/0812006 0611212006
0611212006

68 NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion for summary
-
judgment 67 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 611212006 at 09:45 AM. (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
69 MEMORANDUM by Heartland Apple Inc in Support of motion for summary
-
judgment 67 (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
-70 RULE 56.1 Statement by Heartland Apple Inc regarding motion for summary judgment 67 (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
71 APPENDIX motion for summary judgment 67 by Heartland Apple Inc
-
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# ~ Exhibit B1# l Exhibit B2#:I: Exhibit C1# ~ Exhibit C2# 2 Exhibit D 1# 1 Exhibit D2)(Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
72 MOTION by Defendant Bloomin' Apple LLC for summary judgment (Maki,
-
Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
-73 NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion for summary judgment 72 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 611212006 at 09:45 AM. (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
-74 MEMORANDUM by Bloomin' Apple LLC in Support of motion for summary judgment 72 (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
75 RULE 56.1 Statement by Bloomin' Apple LLC regarding motion for summary
-
judgment 72 (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
-76 APPENDIX motion for summary judgment 72 by Bloomin' Apple LLC
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# ~ Exhibit B1# l Exhibit B2#:I: Exhibit C1# ~ Exhibit C2# 2 Exhibit D)(Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
-77 MOTION by Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC for partial summary judgment (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
78 NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion for partial
-
summary judgment 77 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 611212006 at 09:45 AM. (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
79 MEMORANDUM by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC in Support of motion
-
for partial summary judgment 77 (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
-80 RULE 56.1 Statement by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC regarding motion for partial summary judgment 77 (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 06/0712006)
81 Notice of Paper Filing by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC (Maki, Alison)
-
(Entered: 06/0812006)
-82 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's MOTIONS for summary judgment 67 72 are taken under advisement. Set deadlines as to motions for partial summary judgment 77 , 72 , 67 : Responses due by 712412006 Replies due by 811412006. If a party is not going to file a brief in response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Mailed notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0611212006)
83 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing
-
held on 611212006. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 1011212006 at 09:45

l1ofl6

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

0611212006 0611212006 0611212006 0712112006 0712112006 0712112006 0712112006 0712412006 0712412006 08/0212006 0812412006
0812412006

AM. Telephoned notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0611212006)
84 APPENDIX (VOLUME 1) motion for partial summary judgment 77 by The
-
Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC Gat, ) (Entered: 0611212006)
85 APPENDIX (VOLUME 2) motion for partial summary judgment 77 by The
-
Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC Gat, ) (Entered: 0611212006)
-86 APPENDIX (VOLUME 3) motion for partial summary judgment 77 by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC Gat, ) (Entered: 0611212006)
87 RESPONSE by US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Opposition
-
70 to Heartland Apple Inc's Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Hamilton, Deborah) Modified on 712412006 Gmm-r, ). (Entered: 0712112006)
-88 RESPONSE by US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Bloomin
Apple's Local Rule 56 statement 75 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hamilton,
Deborah) Modified on 712412006 Gmm-r, ). (Entered: 0712112006)
-89 MEMORANDUM by - US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Opposition to motion for summary judgment 72 , motion for summary judgment 67 Plaintiffs' Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 0712112006)
90 JOINT STATEMENT by US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of
-
additional facts in support of memorandum in opposition to motion 89 (Attachments: # l)(Hamilton, Deborah) Modified on 712412006 Gmm-r, ). (Entered: 0712112006)
91 MOTION by Petitioners Susan Brennecka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vickie
-
Miner, Tracy Rangel for extension of time to file response/reply to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motions 67, 72 , 77 (Hernandez, Rene) Modified on 712512006 Gmm-r, ). (Entered: 0712412006)
-92 NOTICE of Motion by Rene Hernandez for presentment ofmotion for extension of time 91 set before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 81212006 at 1:30 PM. (Hernandez, Rene) Modified on 712512006 Gmm-r, ). (Entered: 0712412006)
93 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiffs' Motion for
-
extension of time to file response regarding MOTIONS for summary judgment 77 7267 is granted. Responses due by 812312006 Replies due by 911812006. Telephoned notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 08/0212006)
-94 MOTION by Petitioners Susan Brennecka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vickie Miner, Tracy Rangel for extension of time to file response/reply as to Rule 56 statement 75 , motion for partial summary judgment 77 Intervener's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Hernandez, Rene) (Entered: 0812412006)
-95 NOTICE by Susan Brennecka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vickie Miner, Tracy Rangel re 94 Notice ofFiling Intervener's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Hernandez, Rene) Document Linking Modified on 812512006 Gat, ). (Entered: 0812412006)

12 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

0910512006
0911312006
0911312006 0911312006 1011212006 1012012006 1012012006 1012012006 1012012006 1012012006 1012012006 1012012006

96 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiffs Motion for
-
extension of time to file response regarding MOTION by Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC for partial summary judgment 77 , MOTION by Defendant Bloomin' Apple LLC for summary judgment 72 , MOTION by Defendant Heartland Apple Inc for summary judgment 67 94 is granted. Responses due by 911312006 Replies due by 1012012006. Mailed notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0910512006)
-97 RULE 56 56.3 Statement Statement by Susan Brennecka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vickie Miner, Tracy Rangel regarding motion for partial summary judgment 77 Plaintiff/Intervener 56.3 Statement in Response to Defendant's 56.1 Statement
(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Christina Javid Affidavit# ~ Affidavit Susan Brennecka Affidavit# 1. Affidavit Vicki Miner Affidavit)(Hernandez, Rene)
(Entered: 0911312006)
-98 MEMORANDUM by Susan Brennecka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vickie Miner, Tracy Rangel in Opposition to motion for partial summary judgment 77 Plaintiff/Intervener's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion (Hernandez, Rene) (Entered: 0911312006)
99 NOTICE by Susan Brennecka, Erin Foster, Christina Javid, Vickie Miner, Tracy
-
Rangel re Responses 97 , 98 (Hernandez, Rene) Documents Linked Modified on 911412006 Gat, ). (Entered: 0911312006)
100 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing
-
held on 1011212006. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 21712007 at 09:45 AM. Telephoned notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 1011212006)
-101 MEMORANDUM by Bloomin' Apple LLC in Support of motion for summary judgment 72 (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1012012006)
-102 REPLY by Defendant Heartland Apple Inc to motion for summary judgment 67 Reply Memorandum In Support ofDefendant Heartland Apple, Inc's Motion for Summary Judgment (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1012012006)
-103 RESPONSE by Defendants Bloomin' Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc to Response 90 (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1012012006)
104 MEMORANDUM by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC in Support of motion
-
for partial summary judgment 77 (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1012012006)
-105 RESPONSE by Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC to Rule 56 Statement 97 (Maki, Alison) Document linking modified on 1012012006 Gat, ). (Entered: 1012012006)
-106 MOTION by Defendant The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC to strike Rule 56 statement, 97 (Portions ofAttached Affidavits) (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1012012006)
-107 NOTICE of Motion by Alison J Maki for presentment of motion to strike, motion for relief 106 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 1012712006 at 01 :30 PM. (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 1012012006)

13 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

1012712006 1212112006
01/0312007 01/0512007
01/0512007 01/0512007 01/0812007 0111712007 02/0612007 02/0712007

108 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's Motion to strike
-
106 is taken under advisement. Set deadlines as to motion to strike, motion for relief 106 : Responses due by 1111312007. Motion is transferred to Judge Reinhard for ruling with the motion for summary judgment. Mailed notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 1012712006)
-109 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard :Defendants, Bloomin Apple, LLC and Heartland Apple, Inc, and plaintiff, EEOC, are to each submit a memorandum to the court addressing the issue of the applicability of Papa v. Katy Industries, Inc., 166 F. 3d 937 (7th Cir. 1999), to the issue of what constitutes an employer under Title VII in a context outside the narrow one involving the number of employees of a particular defendant as discussed in Papa (unlike the factual context here where the direct employer has the requisite number of employees). The memoranda are to be filed on or before 1/512007. electronic notice Gat, ) (Entered: 1212112006)
110 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard: For the reasons stated below,
-
the court grants defendant's motion to strike the affidavits ofBrenneka, Javid, and Miner, and the corresponding factual assertions in plaintiffs' LR 56.1 statement. 106 [For further details see text below.] electronic notice Gat, ) (Entered: 01/0412007)
111 MEMORANDUM by - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
-
PLAINTIFF EEOC'S MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING APPLICABILITY OF PAPA V KATY TO ISSUE OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN EMPLOYER UNDER TITLE VII IN CONTEXT OTHER THAN ONE INVOLVING NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OF A PARTICULAR DEFENDANT (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 01/0512007)
112 NOTICE by - U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice ofFiling
-
(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 01/0512007)
-113 MEMORANDUM text entry" 109 by Bloomin' Apple LLC, Heartland Apple Inc (JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LA W) (Maki, Alison) (Entered: 01/0512007)
-114 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard :For the reasons stated below, the court grants defendants' motion for partial summary judgment # 77 .[For further details see text below.] electronic notice Gat, ) (Entered: 01/0912007)
-115 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard: For the reasons stated below, the court grants defendants, The Bloomin' Apple, LLC and Heartland Apple, Inc's motions for summary judgment 67 72 . For further details see order. Electronic notice. (las, ) (Entered: 0111712007)
116 BILL of Costs by The Bloomin' Apple Rockford I, LLC, Bloomin' Apple LLC,
-
Heartland Apple Inc (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Schedules to Defendants' Bill of Costs# ~ Exhibit B, of Schedules to Defendants' Bill of Costs# 1. Exhibit C, of
Schedules to Defendants' Bill ofCosts)(Maki, Alison) (Entered: 02/0612007)
117 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing
-
held on 21712007. Final Pretrial Order due by 51212007. Telephponic Discovery Hearing set for 31712007 at 09:45 AM. Final Pretrial Conference set for 51212007

14ofl6

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

0212212007
03/0712007 0312812007 0411912007 0412512007
0512112007 0512112007 0512212007 0512212007 0512912007 0512912007

at 02:00 PM. Telephoned notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 02/0712007)
118 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard :Defendant submitted a bill of
-
costs. The court strikes the bill of costs as premature. The case is still pending against one of the defendants. No costs shall be considered prior to the entry of a final judgment disposing of all claims and all parties in this case. mailed notice Gat, ) (Entered: 0212212007)
119 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing
-
held on 3/712007. Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 312812007 at 09:45 AM. Settlement Conference set for 411212007 at 01:30 PM. Telephoned notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 03/0712007)
-120 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Telephonic Discovery hearing held on 312812007. Settlement Conference reset for 411912007 at 01:30 PM. Telephoned notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0312812007)
-121 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Settlement conference held on 411912007. Parties report cause settled as stated in open court. Parties to file consent decree by 5121/07. Mailed notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0411912007)
-122 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : This case has been settled in its entirety. The parties are directed to file a stipulation to dismiss with the court by May 21, 2007. If the parties fail to file the required stipulation to dismiss and this court does not extend the period of time for filing the stipulation to dismiss, the Clerk's Office is directed to enter an order of dismissal with prejudice and judgment. Each party shall bear its own costs, unless otherwise provided in the settlement documents. Due to the settlement of this case, any pending motions are now moot. Notices mailed by judge's staff. Gat, ) (Entered: 0412512007)
-123 MOTION by Plaintiff - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for extension of time to file stipulation to dismiss and motion for entry of consent decree (Smason, Diane) (Entered: 0512112007)
124 NOTICE of Motion by Diane Ilene Smason for presentment of motion for
-
extension of time to file 123 before Honorable P. Michael Mahoney on 512312007 at 01:30 PM. (Smason, Diane) (Entered: 0512112007)
125 MOTION by Plaintiff - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
-
approve consent judgment AgreedMotion for Entry of Consent Decree (Smason, Diane) (Entered: 0512212007)
126 MINUTE entry before Judge P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiffs Motion for
-
extension of time to file stipulation to dismiss 123 is moot. Mailed notice (gIg, ) (Entered: 0512212007)
127 MINUTE entry before Judge Philip G. Reinhard : Parties' agreed motion for entry
-
of Consent Decree is granted 125 . Enter Consent Decree. This case is dismissed. Civil case terminated. Notices mailed by judicial staff. (las, ) (Entered: 0512912007)
-128 CONSENT Decree Signed by Judge Philip G. Reinhard on 512912007(las, ) (Entered: 0512912007)

15 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM

CMlECF LIVE, Ver 3.1.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

https:llecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?104842198834254-L_9 ...

PACER Service Center
I
Transaction Receipt
I

I

04/1912008 11:22:53

IPACER Login: IIwu0079

IIClient Code:

II clearinghouse

IDescription: IIDocket Report IISearch Criteria: 113:04-cv-50375

IBillable Pages: 11 10

IICost:

11 0.80

16 of 16

4/1912008 11:23 AM