Diana CHAPMAN, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, & Mary J...., 2001 WL 34625802...
2001 WL 34625802 (N.D.Ill.) (Trial Pleading) United States District Court, N.D. Illinois.
Diana CHAPMAN, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, & Mary J. Spence, Individually and on behalf of Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendants. No. 00 C 50250. May 15, 2001.
Amended Complaint
Judge Phillip G. Reinhard. Mag. Judge P. Michael Mahoney. Now Comes the Plaintiffs, Diana Chapman, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, and Mary J. Spence, by and through their counsel of record, The Sharp Law Offices, P.C., and pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby amend plaintiffs’ complaint as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has original jurisdiction to hear this Complaint and adjudicate the claims stated herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 (a) (4), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f), for actions arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, (“Title VII”), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (Nov. 21, 1991), 42 U.S.C. § 12117, for actions arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), to redress and enjoin the employment practices of DaimlerChrysler. All of the plaintiffs have filed timely Title VII administrative charges of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (“EEOC”). Plaintiffs Diana Chapman, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, and Mary J. Spence have received Notices of Right to Sue letters from the EEOC.
2. Venue is proper in this District by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) because DaimlerChrysler resides in this district and the actions and omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in this district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Diana Chapman is an African-American female resident of Belvidere, Illinois. She has been employed by DaimlerChrysler since 1989 as an assembly line worker, and currently works in department 9150.
4. Plaintiff Doris Heibner is a white female resident of Kirkland, Illinois. She was employed by DaimlerChrysler in 1973, and at the time of filing her charge of discrimination with the EEOC, she was 51 years old and worked in the position of fork lift truck driver.
5. Plaintiff Minnie Isom is an African-American female resident of Rockford, Illinois. She was employed by
1

Diana CHAPMAN, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, & Mary J...., 2001 WL 34625802...
DaimlerChrysler in 1978 as an assembly line worker, and at the time of filing her charge of discrimination with the EEOC, she occupied the position of toolmaker apprentice.
6. Plaintiff Mary J. Spence is an African-American female resident of Rockford, Illinois. She was employed by DaimlerChrysler in 1980 as an assembly line worker.
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
7. Plaintiffs and class members have been subjected to a continuous pattern and practice of sex and race discrimination by DaimlerChrysler. DaimlerChrysler’s supervisor’s and managers have created and condoned a work environment that is hostile to women and African-American employees including the plaintiffs.
8. DaimlerChrysler’s supervisors and managers, and employees with the knowledge of management, have made sexually and racially derogatory, demeaning and discriminatory statements to plaintiffs and other class members.
9. DaimlerChrysler has followed a general practice of discriminating against women and African-Americans with regard to promotion, training, and skills qualification. Women and African-Americans, including the plaintiffs, are expressly and impliedly discouraged from seeking higher paying positions and higher responsibility positions, and are maintained in lower paying subordinate positions, and are denied training and opportunities to demonstrate the qualifications necessary to obtain higher paying jobs and higher responsibility positions, and the opportunity to apply for those jobs and positions. The result has been a significantly segregated work force.
10. The discriminatory practices of DaimlerChrysler have affected the plaintiffs and the proposed class members in the following ways, among others: a. DaimlerChrysler has restricted or excluded women and African-Americans from positions and assignments because of their sex and race and generally assign women and African-Americans to positions and assignments of lower pay, lower responsibility and fewer opportunities for advancement and recognition than positions to which similarly or lesser qualified men or whites were assigned;
b. DaimlerChrysler has kept and keeps women and African-Americans in lower paying jobs by preventing and discouraging them from seeking training and skills, qualification needed to obtain higher responsibility work, and generally has not promoted or permitted women or African-Americans to transfer or otherwise obtain higher responsibility work;
c. DaimlerChrysler has failed to provide women and African-Americans with training and skills qualification opportunities in the same manner and to the same extent as those provided to men and whites;
d. DaimlerChrysler’s policies and practices have produced an adverse impact against women and African-American employees in advancement;
e. and other related ways.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
11. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class consisting of all women and African-Americans who have been employed by Daimler Chrysler at the Belvedere Assembly Plant in Belvedere, Illinois, at any time during the liability period. Plaintiff Diana Chapman also brings this action on her own behalf, and on behalf of a class consisting of all employees who have a disability as defined by the (“ADA”). Plaintiff Doris Heibner also brings this action on her own
2

Diana CHAPMAN, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, & Mary J...., 2001 WL 34625802...
behalf, and on behalf of a class consisting of all employees over the age of 40.
12. At all times during the liability period, there were numerous employees at DaimlerChrysler’s Belvedere Assembly Plant, the vast majority of whom would constitute members of the proposed classes. It would be impracticable to bring so many persons before the Court as plaintiffs.
13. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the classes, including but not limited to: a. whether DaimlerChrysler discriminated against female employees because of their sex, with regard to promotions, work assignments, transfer, compensation, and training;
b. whether DaimlerChrysler discriminated against African-American employees because of their race, with regard to promotions, work assignments, transfer, compensation, and training;
c. whether DaimlerChrysler discriminated against employees because of their disability, with regard to providing reasonable accommodations thereto;
d. whether DaimlerChrysler discriminated against employees over the age of 40, with regard to promotions, work assignments, transfer, compensation, and training;
e. and in other respects.
14. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed classes. All of the named plaintiffs have been subjected to the discrimination alleged herein which they need to show on behalf of the classes.
15. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed classes. They have no conflict of interest with the members of the proposed classes and they are represented by counsel that is both competent and experienced in employment discrimination litigation.
16. DaimlerChrysler’s failure to take prompt and effective action to bring an end to the discrimination complained of herein, and its failure to take effective action to limit the effects thereof, were not based on grounds peculiar to any individual plaintiff or class member, but on grounds generally applicable to all of the members of the proposed classes, making appropriate final monetary relief, in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, with respect to each proposed class as a whole.
17. The questions of law and fact common to the compensatory damages claims of the proposed classes predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, so that the certification of each proposed class is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
18. The proposed classes may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) as to the claims for punitive damages, and under Rule 23(b)(3) as to the claims for compensatory damages.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS
19. Plaintiff Diana Chapman has herself experienced or observed discrimination on the basis of her disability, i.e., diabetes. She has been exposed to a discriminatory hostile work environment because of her disability.
20. Plaintiff Diana Chapman alleges that the defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in regards to its actions concerning her stated disability.
3

Diana CHAPMAN, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, & Mary J...., 2001 WL 34625802...
21. The Defendant failed to accommodate Ms. Chapman’s diabetic condition by refusing to allow her to take ten-minute breaks to perform a blood sugar test and administer any needed medication prior to the Defendant’s own scheduled breaks.
22. On August 27, 1999, Ms. Chapman requested a break to check her blood sugar levels. She was not given a break and subsequently passed out on the job. She was hospitalized.
23. On August 30, 1999, Ms. Chapman returned to work with a medical slip that indicated that she needed three (3) ten minute breaks each day to check her blood sugar levels. The slip indicated that the checks should be done at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., and 1 p.m.
24. On August 31, 1999, Ms. Chapman was again not given her breaks as prescribed and she went to Defendant’s medical department.
25. On September 23, 1999, a notice of work schedule adjustment was posted. The adjustments were to go into effect on September 27, 1999. Department 9150’s breaks were to occur from 8:00 to 8:26 a.m., 10:30 to 11:00 a.m., and 1:00 to 1:20 p.m.
26. According to the schedule, at those break times departments 9130, 9150, 9171, 9190, and 3210 all go on break. That would account for a large number of production workers including a number of women all going on break, using a limited number of bathrooms at one time.
27. Ms. Chapman would have to wait in line to use the bathroom in order to check her blood sugar levels because there is a limited number of bathroom stalls, and during a majority of the times, the ten minute break period would have expired to allow her to check her blood sugar level. Ms. Chapman would either be late getting back to the assembly line or would attempt to check her blood sugar levels while working on the assembly line.
28. Ms. Chapman would be reprimanded by her superiors for attempting to check her blood sugar levels while on the assembly line or for returning to the assembly line late.
29. Consequently, this created a hostile or abusive work environment for Ms. Chapman because the Defendant has refused to give her another place to check her blood sugar levels except the common bathroom during defendant’s scheduled break periods. Therefore, the Defendant has failed to make an effective and reasonable accommodation for Ms. Chapman’s disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
30. On January 7, 2000, Ms. Chapman filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reiterating the above allegations of a continuing nature in that the defendant failed to make a reasonable accommodation for her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
31. On October 3, 2000, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a determination on the merits of Ms. Chapman’s Charge of Discrimination.
32. The Commission determined that the evidence obtained in its investigation established reasonable cause to believe that the defendant discriminated against Ms. Chapman because of her disability in that it failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
33. Moreover, on April 30, 2001, Ms. Chapman received a notice of right to sue from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in which this cause of action ensues to redress the violation of her federally protected rights.
34. Plaintiff Doris Heibner has herself experienced or observed discrimination on the basis of her sex and age in training, work assignments, promotions and compensation.
35. At the time of filing her first Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Ms. Heibner, a white female was 51 years of age. 4

Diana CHAPMAN, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, & Mary J...., 2001 WL 34625802...
36. in 1993, Ms. Heibner applied for the Skilled Trade Apprentice Program which would have been a promotion over the fork lift driver position which she occupied. Ms. Heibner was told by a DaimlerChrysler representative that her name would be placed on a list for future openings in the program.
37. However, in August of 1999, DaimlerChrysler selected or hired for this program, but Ms. Heibner was not selected or hired therein, and the defendant either failed or refused to give her an explanation for denying her the position.
38. Moreover, Ms. Heibner alleges that over the years, DaimlerChrysler hired only males into the Skilled Trade Apprentice Program, and that it began a pattern and practice of hiring only younger individuals with more math skills.
39. On February 22, 2000, Ms. Heibner amended her Charge of Discrimination to allege that DaimlerChrysler’s conduct towards her was a pattern and practice of sex and age discrimination which constituted class-wide discrimination against other similarly situated individuals.
40. Plaintiff Minnie Isom has herself experienced or observed discrimination on the basis of her sex in training, work assignments, promotions and compensation. She has also been exposed to a sexually hostile work environment
41. Ms. Isom alleges, that DaimlerChrysler discriminated against her on the basis of her sex in promoting her into the Skilled Trade Apprentice Program.
42. In 1992, Ms. Isom took the Skilled Trade Apprenticeship test and on February 2, 1998, six years later, she was hired into the position as a toolmaker apprentice.
43. Ms. Isom attributes the six year delay in being hired as a toolmaker apprentice to the fact that less qualified males, and particularly the children of management and union officials were hired into the position over her and were less qualified than she.
44. Ms. Isom also alleges, that DaimlerChrysler discriminated against her on the basis of her sex in failing to hire her into the union appointed position of benefits representative.
45. On November 11, 1998, Ms. Isom qualified and applied for the position of benefits representative. On November 18, 1998, she interviewed for the position, but on April 20, 1999, the position was given to a less qualified male with less seniority than she.
46. Plaintiff Mary J. Spence has herself experienced or observed discrimination on the basis of her sex in training, work assignments, promotions and compensation. On June 6, 1980, she was hired by DaimlerChrysler as an assembler.
47. in 1993, she took and passed the Skilled Trade Apprenticeship test. She and other female employees were not promoted to the skilled trade position, yet other male employees who passed the test in 1993 have since been promoted to skilled trade positions.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 48. Plaintiffs’ restate and reallege paragraphs 1-47, inclusive, as though set forth here in full.
49. DaimlerChrysler has discriminated against plaintiffs and all members of the proposed class by denying them the same rights as enjoyed by white employees as respects the making, performance, modification and termination of their employment relationship with DaimlerChrysler and to the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of that
5

Diana CHAPMAN, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, & Mary J...., 2001 WL 34625802...
relationship, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as amended.
50. DaimlerChrysler’s conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes.
51. By reason of DaimlerChrysler’s discrimination, plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under Section 1981, including but not limited to damages for mental anguish and punitive damages.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 52. Plaintiffs’ restate and reallege paragraphs 1-47, inclusive, as though set forth here in full.
53. DaimlerChrysler has discriminated against plaintiffs and all members of the proposed class with respect to the terms and conditions of employment because of their race and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
54. DaimlerChrysler’s conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.
55. DaimlerChrysler’s policies and practices have produced disparate impact against class members with respect to the terms and conditions of employment.
56. By reason of DaimlerChrysler’s discrimination, plaintiffs and members of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under Section 2000e.
Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12101 57. Plaintiffs’ restate and reallege paragraphs 1-47, inclusive, as though set forth here in full.
58. DaimlerChrysler has discriminated against plaintiffs and all members of the proposed class by failing to accommodate their disability as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12117.
59. DaimlerChrysler’s conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.
60. DaimlerChrysler’s policies and practices have produced disparate impact against class members with requiring reasonable accommodations for their disability.
61. By reason of DaimlerChrysler’s discrimination, plaintiffs and members of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under Section 12117(a), including but not limited to damages for mental anguish.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq.
62. Plaintiffs’ restate and reallege paragraphs 1-47, inclusive, as though set forth here in full.
63. DaimlerChrysler has discriminated against plaintiffs and all members of the proposed class with regard to employees 40 years of age and over in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq.
64. DaimlerChrysler’s conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.
6

Diana CHAPMAN, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, & Mary J...., 2001 WL 34625802...
65. DaimlerChrysler’s policies and practices have produced disparate impact against class members with respect to employees 40 years of age and over. 66. By reason of DaimlerChrysler’s discrimination, plaintiffs and members of the proposed class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under Section 12117(a), including liquidated damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court: a. adjudge, decree and declare the practices of DaimlerChrysler complained of herein to be violative of the rights secured to plaintiffs and members of the proposed class; b. issue a permanent prohibitory injunction prohibiting DaimlerChrysler and its officers, agents, employees, and successors from engaging in the practices complained of herein; c. issue a permanent mandatory injunction requiring DaimlerChrysler to adopt and implement policies and practices that ensure equal treatment to all women and African Americans employees that reduce the opportunity for supervisory level employees to violate the requirements of Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; d. order DaimlerChrysler to provide appropriate job relief to plaintiffs and class members in the form of promotions for persons who should have been in higher level jobs than they are at the time of judgment and any other job relief determined to be appropriate; e. enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and class members against DaimlerChrysler for all damages available under the law, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, and past and future mental anguish, pain and suffering in amounts to be determined at trial; f. order DaimlerChrysler to pay punitive damages to plaintiffs and class members in amounts to be determined at trial; g. order DaimlerChrysler to pay attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses and expert witness fees of plaintiffs and class members associated with this action; h. grant such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as the Court may deem just or equitable; and i. retain continuing jurisdiction over this matter until such time as the Court is satisfied that DaimlerChrysler has remedied the practices complained of herein and is determined to be in full compliance with the law.
7

 
 Chapman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

Opinion

2001 WL 908952 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division.
CHAPMAN v.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.
No. 00 C 50250. | July 26, 2001.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
REINHARD, J.
*1 On July 12, 2000, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Daimler–Chrysler Corporation (“DaimlerChrysler”) and the International Union of the United Auto Workers Local Union 1268. On November 30, 2000, DaimlerChrysler filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), 41(b) and 12(b)(6), which has been fully briefed. On May 15, 2001, certain plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against DaimlerChrysler only, and DaimlerChrysler filed another motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(5), 4(m), 41(b) and 12(b)(6), essentially asserting the same grounds for dismissal.
The thrust of DaimlerChrysler’s motion is that plaintiffs served the original complaint 121 days after it was filed, in violation of Rule 4(m)’s 120–day limitation. Plaintiffs argue their complaint has two dates stamped on it. One stamp shows “Received” with a date of July 12, 2000 underneath, and another stamp shows “Filed” with a date of July 13, 2000 underneath. Based on these stamped dates, according to plaintiffs, they calculated Rule 4(m)’s 120–day as starting from the “Filed” date of July 13, 2000, and served the complaint on November 10, 2000. Plaintiffs also note that if their complaint is dismissed, the limitations period for their Title VII and ADA claims will have expired (although it appears the § 1981 claims would remain viable).
DaimlerChrysler is correct in that the complaint was considered to have been filed on the date the clerk’s office received it, which was July 12, 2000. However, under these circumstances, it is understandable plaintiffs misunderstood July 13, 2000 to be the relevant date, given the date stamp on the complaint, although plaintiffs’ counsel is forewarned they will be expected to understand how Rule 4(m) operates in the future. Thus, the court exercises its discretion in permissively extending the time for service of process by one day. See Panaras v. Liquid Carbonic Indus. Corp., 94 F.3d 338, 341 (7 th Cir.1996).
DaimlerChrysler’s argument regarding the class allegations is premature. Its argument based on Rule 12(b)(6) is rejected; the complaint satisfies federal notice pleading standards. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993); Scott v. City of Chicago, 195 F.3d 950 (7 th Cir.1999).
The court denies DaimlerChrysler’s second motion to dismiss for the same reasons.

1

 
 Case: 3:00-cv-50250 As of: 06/08/2010 01:19 PM CDT 1 of 7
MAHONEY, PROTO, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.0.3 (Rockford)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:00−cv−50250

Chapman, et al v. Daimler−Chrysler, et al Assigned to: Honorable Philip G. Reinhard Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/12/2000 Date Terminated: 10/29/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Diana Chapman individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons TERMINATED: 10/24/2001

represented by Robert Sharp The Law Offices of Robert Sharp &Assoc. 120 W. Madison Street Suite 505 Chicago, IL 60602 312 920 1745 Email: lawofrsj@aol.com TERMINATED: 09/28/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Willie J. Nunnery Nunnery Law Office 802 West Broadway Suite 211 Madison, WI 53713−1866 (608) 222−7777 TERMINATED: 10/24/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Carolyn Crawley individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Carolyn Crawley PO Box 8491 Rockford, IL 61126 PRO SE

Robert Sharp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tina Garrett individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Tina Garrett 9631 HighStone Drive Roscoe, IL 61073 PRO SE

Robert Sharp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Paul Golden individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Robert Sharp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2001

Case: 3:00-cv-50250 As of: 06/08/2010 01:19 PM CDT 2 of 7

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Doris Heibner individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Robert Sharp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/27/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Minnie Isom individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Robert Sharp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/27/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bobbie Renner individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons TERMINATED: 09/19/2002

represented by Rene Hernandez Attorney at Law 1625 East State Street Rockford, IL 61104 (815) 387−0261 Email: rensone@aol.com TERMINATED: 09/19/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Sharp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mary J Spence individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons

represented by Robert Sharp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/27/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Daimler−Chrysler Corporation

represented by Stephen E. Balogh WilliamsMcCarthy, LLP 120 West State Street Suite 400 Rockford, IL 61101 (815) 987−8900 Email: sbalogh@wilmac.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan A. Maher United States Attorney's Office (Rockford) 308 West State Street Suite 300 Rockford, IL 61101 (815) 987−4456 Fax: (815) 987−4236

Case: 3:00-cv-50250 As of: 06/08/2010 01:19 PM CDT 3 of 7
Email: Brendan.Maher@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John James Holevas WilliamsMcCarthy 120 West State Street PO Box 219 Rockford, IL 61105−0219 (815) 987−8900 Email: jholevas@wilmac.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Troy E. Haggestad WilliamsMcCarthy 120 West State Street PO Box 219 Rockford, IL 61105−0219 (815) 987−8900 Fax: (815) 965−5134 Email: thaggestad@wilmac.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
International Union of United Auto Workers Local Union 1268

Date Filed 07/12/2000
07/12/2000 07/12/2000 08/08/2000
08/11/2000 09/06/2000 11/13/2000 11/30/2000 11/30/2000 12/05/2000

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; jury demand − Civil cover sheet − Appearance(s) of Robert Sharp as attorney(s) for plaintiff Diana Chapman, plaintiff Carolyn Crawley, plaintiff Tina Garrett, plaintiff Paul Golden, plaintiff Doris Heibner, plaintiff Minnie Isom, plaintiff Bobbie Renner, plaintiff Mary J Spence ( 0 summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1−1 through 1−3) (clb) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 7/12/00 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 296168. (clb) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
THIS matter is referred to the Hon. P. Michael Mahoney pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 11(d). (clb) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 8/8/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing set to 1:30 8/11/00. Plaintiff is directed to notify any party filing an appearance subsequent to the entry of this order of the status hearing. Mailed notice (glg) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 8/11/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing reset to 1:30 9/6/00 . Mailed notice (glg) (Entered: 08/11/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 9/6/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Status hearing held and continued to 1:30 12/6/00 . No notice (glg) (Entered: 09/06/2000)
TWO original summons and two copies issued as to defendant's Daimler−Chrysler, Intl Union of United on 11/13/00. (fce) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Daimler−Chrysler by Stephen E. Balogh, Troy E. Haggestad, Brendan A. Maher, John James Holevas. (fce) (Entered: 11/30/2000)
3 MOTION by defendant to dismiss ; Notice; Memorandum of law in support of their motion (Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 11/30/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 12/5/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Pursuant to request of counsel, Status hearing and noticed motion reset to 1:30 12/13/00 . Telephoned notice (glg) (Entered: 12/05/2000)

Case: 3:00-cv-50250 As of: 06/08/2010 01:19 PM CDT 4 of 7

12/13/2000
01/29/2001 01/30/2001 02/07/2001
02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/26/2001 03/01/2001 03/21/2001
04/11/2001
04/18/2001 04/27/2001 05/15/2001 05/16/2001

4 MINUTE ORDER of 12/13/00 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Filed defendant's motion to dismiss [3−1]. Answer brief to motion due 1/10/01. Reply to answer brief due 1/24/01. Ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss will be by mail. Status hearing held. If a party is not going to file a response or reply, it is that party's obligation, within the time frame established by this order, to so notify the court in writing. Parties to hold FRCP 26(f) conference. Case management order due 4/10/01. Initial pretrial conference set for 4/11/01 at 1:30 pm. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/13/2000)
5 MOTION by plaintiff's for enlargement of time to file its' response to defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to file its' response instanter (Attachment); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
6 LETTER dated 1/24/01 from defendant's attorney informing the court they do not intend on filing a reply. (fce) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
7 MINUTE ORDER of 2/7/01 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard: Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to 3/21/01, to file response to motion to dismiss is granted [5−1]. Reply due 4/4/01. By 3/21/01, plaintiff to either file voluntary dismissals as to other defendant(s) without presentment or file a motion to withdraw with presentment. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
8 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss [3−1] (Attachments); Notice(fce) Modified on 02/22/2001 (Entered: 02/22/2001)
9 PETITION by plaintiff's attorney to withdraw as counsel ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 02/22/2001)
10 AMENDED RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendants motion to dismiss [3−1](Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 02/26/2001)
11 FINAL REPLY memorandum by defendant Daimler−Chrysler in support of its motion to dismiss [3−1]. (fce) (Entered: 03/01/2001)
12 MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff's Carolyn Crawley, Paul Golden, Tina Garrett and Bobbie Renner's petition for Robert Sharp, Jr. to withdraw as counsel is granted [9−1]. Individual plaintiff's given to 4/4/01 to retain counsel. Retained counsel for individual plaintiff's to appear at the initial pretrial conference set for 4/11/01 at 1:30 pm or causes will be dismissed for want of prosecution. A copy of this order is being sent to the individual plaintiff's addresses. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
SCHEDULE set on 4/11/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Initial Pretrial conference held and continued to 1:30 5/16/01 . Plaintiff Renner given to 5/16/01 to retain counsel. Non−represented plaintiffs or counsel must appear or case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Represented plaintiffs FRCP 26(a)(1) disclosure due 5/10/01. No notice (glg) (Entered: 04/11/2001)
13 MOTION by plaintiff's Diana Chapman, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, Mary J Spence to amend complaint ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
14 MINUTE ORDER of 4/27/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint [13−1] is entered and continued to discovery conference set for 5/16/01 at 1:30 pm. Plaintiff to submit proposed amended complaint to defendant and court by 5/14/01. No notice (fce) (Entered: 04/30/2001)
15 AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff's Diana Chapman, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, Mary J Spence; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 05/15/2001)
16 MINUTE ORDER of 5/16/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Initial pretrial conference held and continued with motion to amend complaint to 6/15/01 at 1:30 pm. Plaintiffs Renner and Golden given to 6/13/01 to retain counsel. It appearing that Tina Garrett and Carolyn Crawley did not appear as ordered on 4/11/01, it is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution as to these two plaintiffs. Parties are given ten days from service of this order, as calculated under Rule 6 to appeal to Judge Reinhard pursuant to FRCP 72. Copy mailed to them. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered:

Case: 3:00-cv-50250 As of: 06/08/2010 01:19 PM CDT 5 of 7

06/15/2001 06/19/2001 06/20/2001 06/26/2001 06/27/2001 06/27/2001
07/09/2001 07/13/2001
07/24/2001
07/24/2001 08/15/2001 08/15/2001 09/26/2001

05/17/2001)
17 MINUTE ORDER of 6/15/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff's Chapman, Heibner, Ison and Spence's motion for leave to amend complaint is granted [13−1]. Response due 7/6/01. Defendant to submit letter regarding status of motion to dismiss. Initial pretrial conference held and continued to 6/27/01 at 1:30 pm. No notice (fce) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
18 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Bobbie Renner by Rene Hernandez (fce) (Entered: 06/19/2001)
19 OBJECTION by plaintiff Carolyn Crawley−Guerin to minute order dismissing party [16−1](Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 06/20/2001)
20 MOTION by plaintiff's Diana Chapman, Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, Mary J Spence for pretrial discovery pursuant to FRCP 26 ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 06/26/2001)
21 PARTIES' proposed case management order by plaintiff. (fce) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
22 MINUTE ORDER of 6/27/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Initial pretrial conference held. Case management order approved. FRCP 26(a)(1) disclosure due 7/31/01. Fact discovery cutoff on class certification set for 10/26/01. Class certification motion due 11/26/01. It is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that plaintiff Paul Golden be dismissed for want of prosecution for failure to appear. Parties are given ten days from receipt of this order to appeal to Judge Reinhard as calculated under Rule 6 pursuant to FRCP 72. Discovery conference set for 9/28/01 at 1:30 pm. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
23 MOTION by defendant to dismiss ; Memorandum in support of their motion; Notice. (fce) Modified on 07/10/2001 (Entered: 07/09/2001)
24 MINUTE ORDER of 7/13/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Filed defendant's motion to dismiss [23−1]. Answer brief to motion due 8/17/01. Reply to answer brief due 8/31/01. Ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss will be by mail. If a party is not going 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 (fce) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
25 MINUTE ORDER of 7/24/01 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard: For the reasons stated on the reverse Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated 5/16/01 is adopted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Crawley's claims are reinstated, although if she fails to show up for court dates and otherwise participate in the litigation, or hire an attorney in her stead, her claims will be dismissed. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as to plaintiff Garrett, and her claims are dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated 6/27/01, and plaintiff Golden's claims are dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
26 MINUTE ORDER of 7/24/01 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard: For the reasons stated on the reverse Memorandum Opinion and Order, both of defendant Daimler−Chrysler's motions to dismiss are denied [23−1]. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
27 ANSWER by defendant to class action complaint [1−1]. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
28 ANSWER by defendant Daimler−Chrysler to amended complaint [15−1]. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
29 MOTION by plaintiff Diana Chapman for substitution of counsel ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 09/26/2001)

Case: 3:00-cv-50250 As of: 06/08/2010 01:19 PM CDT 6 of 7

09/28/2001 09/28/2001 09/28/2001
10/24/2001 11/15/2001 11/16/2001 01/23/2002 02/04/2002
02/14/2002 02/14/2002 03/28/2002 04/26/2002
05/20/2002
07/24/2002

30 NOTICE by plaintiff Tina Garrett of change of address. (fce) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
31 NOTICE by plaintiff Carolyn Crawley of change of address (fce) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
32 MINUTE ORDER of 9/28/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery conference held. Diana Chapman's motion for substitution of counsel is granted [29−1]. Robert Sharp given leave to withdraw and Willie Nunnery given leave to file his appearance. Fact discovery cutoff extended to 11/16/01. Discovery conference continued to 1:30 pm on 11/16/01. Motion for class certification due 12/7/01. No notice (fce) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
33 MINUTE ORDER of 10/24/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Parties agree that Magistrate Mahoney can enter order. By agreement Diane Chapman is dismissed as a plaintiff without prejudice under FRCP 41. terminating party Diana Chapman Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/25/2001)
34 MOTION by plaintiffs' Doris Heibner, Minnie Isom, Mary J Spence to extend discovery ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
35 MINUTE ORDER of 11/16/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery conference held. Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery to 12/28/01 is granted [34−1]. Dispositive motions due 1/31/02. Discovery conference to 1:30 pm on 2/1/02. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
36 MOTION by plaintiff Bobbie Renner to extend fact discovery ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
37 MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery conference held and continued to 4/12/02 at 1:30 p.m. Defendant's motion for protective order allowed filed but the court will hold motion until 2/8/02 during which time any objections shall be filed in writing. Motion to extend fact discovery allowed [36−1]. Dispositive motions due 5/17/02. Fact discovery cutoff date 4/18/02. Plaintiff Crawley to appear on 4/12/02 at 1:30 p.m. or cause will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
38 MINUTE ORDER of 2/14/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to this court's 2/4/02, order and no objection to the protective order having been offererd, this court enters the protective order in this case filed 2/4/02. Entered order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
38 ENTERED PROTECTIVE ORDER (fce) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 3/28/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Due to the court's schedule, discovery conference reset for 1:30 4/26/02 . Mailed notice (glg) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
39 MINUTE ORDER of 4/26/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery conference held and continued to 7/24/02 at 1:30 pm. Fact discovery closed 7/31/02. Amendment of pleadings due 6/28/02. Dispositive motions due 8/30/02. Carolyn Crawley does not appear as ordered previously. It is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Carolyn Crawley be dismissed as a plaitniff for want of prosecution. Parties are given ten days from service of this order, as calculated under Rule 6 to appeal to Judge Reinhard, pursuant to FRCP 72. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
40 MINUTE ORDER of 5/20/02 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard: On April 26, 2002 Magistrate Judge Mahoney issued a Report and Receommendation that the claim of plaintiff Carolyn Crawley be dismissed for want of prosecution for her failure to appear after a prior warning. Crawley has not filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation and it is adopted. The claim of Crawley only is dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 7/24/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held and continued to 1:30 8/21/02 . Fact Discovery ordered closed on 8/30/02 . Mailed notice (glg) (Entered: 07/24/2002)

Case: 3:00-cv-50250 As of: 06/08/2010 01:19 PM CDT 7 of 7

08/19/2002 08/30/2002 09/18/2002
09/19/2002
09/25/2002 09/27/2002 09/27/2002 09/27/2002
10/16/2002 10/16/2002 10/18/2002
10/23/2002 10/29/2002

41 MINUTE ORDER of 8/19/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: At the request of the parties, the discovery conference set for 8/21/02 is reset for 8/30/02 at 1:30 pm. Telephoned notice (fce) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 8/30/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Discovery conference held and continued to 4:00 9/18/02 . Mailed notice (glg) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
42 MINUTE ORDER of 9/18/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Discovery conference held. Attorney Robert Sharp does not appear. As to plaintiff Bobbie Jo Renner, Parties report cause settled. Parties given to 10/18/02 to file stipulation to dismiss. Court retains jurisdiction to enforece settlement. Dispositive motions due 10/30/02. Discovery conference continued to 11/6/02 at 1:30 pm. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
43 MINUTE ORDER of 9/19/02 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard: Pursuant to Magistrate Mahoney's order of 9/18/02, plaintiff, Bobbie Jo Renner is dismissed as a party plaintiff to this case. Stipulation to dismiss as to this plaintiff to be filed by 10/18/02. Court retains jurisdiction to enforce settlement. terminating party Bobbie Renner Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
44 MOTION by plaintiff Mary J Spence to withdraw as counsel ; NOtice. (fce) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
45 MOTION by plaintiff Minnie Isom to withdraw as counsel ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
46 MOTION by plaintiff Doris Heibner to withdraw as counsel ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
47 MINUTE ORDER of 9/27/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Plaintiff's Heibner, Isom and Spence's motions for Robert Share to withdraw as counsel are granted [46−1], [45−1], [44−1]. Plaintiffs given to 10/18/02 to retain counsel. Status hearing to set dispositive motions set for 1:30 p.m. on 10/18/02. Plaintiffs or retained counsel must appear or case may dismissed for want of prosecution. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
48 MOTION by plaintiff Doris Heibner to compel settlement ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
49 MOTION by plaintiff Minnie Isom to compel settlement ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
50 MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Status hearing held and continued to 3:00 p.m. on 10/23/02 . It appearing the Mary J. Spence does not appear as ordered by the court. It is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that her cause of action be dismissed for want of prosecution. Parties are given ten days from service of this order, as calculated under Rule 6 to appeal to Judge Reinhard, pursuant to FRCP 72. Status and motions as to plaintiffs Heibner and Isom continued to 10/23/02 at 3:00 p.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
51 MINUTE ORDER of 10/23/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Settlement conference held. Parties report cause settled. Parties given to 11/25/02 to file stipulation to dismiss. Court retains jurisdiction to enforce settlement. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
52 MINUTE ORDER of 10/29/02 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard: Pursuant to Magistrate Mahoney's order of 10/23/02, this case is dismissed. Parties given to 11/25/02, to file stipulation to dismiss. Court retains jurisdiction to enforce settlement. Any pending motions are now moot. terminating case Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/29/2002)