UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

*

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

*

*

Plaintiff,

*

*

*
*

vs.

*

*

TIC - THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY,

*

and

*

TIC HOLDINGS, INC.

*

*

Defendants.

*

*****************************

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-1776 SECTION "I" JUDGE: AFRICK MAGISTRATE (2) MAG.: WILKINSON

CONSENT DECREE
1. This Consent Decree ("Consent Decree" or "Decree") is made and entered into by and between, Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" or the "EEOC") and Defendant TIC-The Industrial Company (hereinafter referred to as "TIC" or "the Company"). EEOC and TIC are collectively referred to herein as "the Parties." This Decree resolves the cause of actIOn instituted by the EEOC on June II, 2001, by filing its Complaint And Jury Demand (hereinafter "Complaint") against TIC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil Action No. 01-1776. This Decree also resolves Charge Nos. 270-94·1536,270-94-1537,270··94-1539,270·-97-0690,

2. The Commission has conducted an investigation of the allegations made in the Individual Charges and issued Letters of Determination (hereafter "LaDs" or "findings") on March 12, 1998, on Individual Charge No. 270-94-1536 and on March 20, 1998, on Individual Charge Nos. 270·,94-1537, 270-94-1539, 270-97-0690, and 270-97-1048. The Commission shall not in the future attempt to present as evidence, rely on in any manner, or otherwise refer to the Individual Charges and/or the LaDs issued on those Individual Charges.
3. For the duration of this Consent Decree, should th~ EEOC file any Commissioner's Charge against TIC, whether as the respondent or as a co-respondent, the EEOC, consistent with all current practices, procedures and guidance, will advise TIC at the time such charge is served that the Commission encourages early settlement of such charges. Such settlement efforts may be commenced as soon as the Commission has obtained sufficient facts on each of the bases and issues raised in the charge to develop an informed settlement proposal. Settlement discussions will include, at least, a summary of the facts upon which the allegations of the Commissioner's Charge are based. TIC will be given an opportunity to respond and to reach a resolution of the Commissioner's Charge. Nothing in this Consent Decree will prevent the EEOC from issuing a Commissioner's Charge during the term of this Consent Decree.
4. The Company absolutely denies the truth of each of the allegations in the Complaint, the Individual Charges, and the LaDs. The Company absolutely denies that it has engaged in any conduct in violation of Title VII, or any state, local or other federal law. Rather, the Company is entering into this Consent Decree to avoid further expenses and the ongoing disruption of operations related to this litigation. TIC's entry into this Consent Decree is not, and shall not be argued or accepted as, evidence of any violation by TIC of Title VII or of any state, local, or other federal law or constitution. The EEOC may not tender or use this Consent Decree as evidence in any legal proceeding, including the determination of charges and/or the decision to issue a Commissioner's Charge, except a proceeding in which an issue in the proceeding is the enforcement of this Consent Decree.
2 Consen! Decr<->e

5. The EEOC's Complaint was filed on June 11,2001, and alleges that TIC and its parent company, TIC Holdings, Inc. ("TICH") engaged in unlawful practices under Title VII related to the recruiting and hiring of construction workers, which practices had the effect of denying employment to African Americans because of their race. The tenn "African American" herein shall refer to any person whose race is Black, irrespective of national origin, birthplace, etc. As such, for example, a Black person born in England would be an African American for purposes of this Decree. The tenn "Blacks" shall sometimes herein be used interchangeably with the tenn "African Americans." The Complaint also alleges that TIC and TICH failed to make and preserve records relevant to the detennination of whether unlawful employment practices had been or were being committed, under Title VII, Section 709(c).
6. On October 31,2001, TIC filed its Answer, denying all of the EEOC's allegations of violations of federal law.
7. On November 12, 2002, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal of all claims against TIC Holdings, Inc., in Civil Action No. 01-1776, with prejudice. TICH is thus not a party to or bound by this Consent Decree. Nothing in this Decree shall affect any agreement into which the EEOC might have entered with TIC Holdings, Inc. prior to the Court's entry of this Decree.
8. As a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that the Complaint should be finally resolved by entry of this Decree. The Parties have entered into this Decree to avoid unnecessarily protracted, expensive and disruptive litigation; to provide final and preclusive effect to the claims and issues that were raised pursuant to the Individual Charges with respect to employment actions that occurred prior to the effective date hereof and to resolve and to provide similar final and preclusive effect to all allegations contained in the Complaint; and to provide an expedited procedure for providing compensation to Qualified Claimants. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims arising out of the Individual Charges and the Complaint filed in this action, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims by the Commission of employment discrimination that were made or could have
3 Con~~nt Decree

been made in this action and/or which raise allegations of race discrimination in recruiting and/or hiring for construction positions based on actions taken or occurring before the date of entry of this Decree by the Court. The Parties further agree that this Decree does not, however, resolve any Charges filed by individuals that may be pending with EEOC other than the Charges specifically referred to in this paragraph or those that may be released by "Qualified Claimants" (as that term is defined herein) pursuant to this Decree. This Decree in no way affects the Commission's right to process and investigate timely pending and future charges filed by individuals against the Company in accordance with Commission procedures. This Decree in no way affects the rights of any individual who has a pending charge to commence a civil action on his or her own behalf against TIC if that individual chooses not to accept compensation under this Decree. However, should any such individual with a pending charge elect to receive compensation under this Decree and execute a release, as required by this Decree, he or she would be barred from commencing any civil action and his or her pending charge would be dismissed and extinguished by such release and receipt of payment hereunder. The EEOC shall not commence any civil action alleging discrimination, harassment or retaliation based on any claims alleged in any charge pending on or before the entry of this Decree, which claims could have been a part of this action and/or raise allegations of race discrimination in recruiting and/or hiring.
9. This Decree constitutes the complete and exclusive agreement between the Parties with respect to the matters referred to herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this Decree shall be effective unless set forth in a written agreement executed by the Parties and approved by the Court. No representations or inducements to compromise this action have been made, other than those recited or referenced in this Decree (including the Exhibits attached hereto) or expressly stated in a separate written agreement between the Parties. Neither Party may approach the Court seeking any modification, amendment, extension, or other order concerning this Consent Decree without having first discussed, in person or by telephone, the proposed change and sought agreement by or resolution with the non-moving Party.
4 Consent Decree

10. The effective date of the Decree shall be the date of the Court's entry of the Decree (the "Effective Date"). Unless extended by the Court for good cause, subject to provisions set forth within, the Decree shall continue in force and effect for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date. Prior to its expiration, either Party may move the Court for an extension of the obligations of that part of the Decree that such Party contends not to have been complied with or completed, and the Decree shall remain in effect only as to such provisions until the Court rules on the motion or otherwise orders.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations of the Parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
11. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the Parties for purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree.
12. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable and just. 13. This Decree conforms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not III 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, those for whom the EEOC seeks relief, and the public.
Term of Consent Decree 14. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the entry of this Decree by the Court. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the Parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to etTectuate its purposes. As such, the Court will retain jurisdiction after the expiration of the term ofthe Decree with regard to any disputes concerning compliance herewith.
5 Consent Decree
- - - - ~-- - - - - - - - - -

!\1onetary Relief 15. TIC shall pay the gross sum of TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,300,000) ("Class Fund"), into a segregated account (the "Class Fund Account") in the manner described herein: A. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, TIC shall establish and maintain a segregated account, which shall be known as the "Class Fund Account." TIC shall fund the Class Fund Account with the full amount of the Class Fund by such time as TIC is required by this Decree to distribute payments from the Class Fund to Qualified Claimants. B. The Class Fund Account shall be an account in an established financial institution selected by TIC. C. The Class Fund will be distributed in accordance with the provisions of this Decree. Under no circumstances may TIC make withdrawals or expenditures from the $2,300,000 principal of the Class Fund, except as provided in the Decree. D. Nothing in this paragraph shall require TIC to deposit monies into the Class Fund Account in the event this Decree is vacated, rejected, or otherwise modified by any competent court, such that it no longer reflects the intent of the Parties. In that event, if the Parties or the Court are unable to reform the Decree so that the basic intent of both Parties is met, TIC is relieved of any obligation to deposit any monies into the Class Fund Account, and any monies (including interest earned) existing in the Class Fund Account at such time, shall immediately be repaid to TIC. 16. In addition to the Class Fund described above, TIC shall further pay the gross sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200.000) into the Minority Development Program which is described in further detail hereinbelow at paragraph 34. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, TIC shall establish and maintain a segregated account which shall immediately be funded by TIC with the sum of the aforementioned TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000). This account will be known as the "Minority Development Account." Expenses associated with the implementation and administration of the
6 Consent Decree

Minority Development Program, as discussed hereinbelow, may not be paid from the principal of the Minority Development Account, except as may be provided elsewhere in this Decree. Further, the funds deposited in this account shall be used solely for the purposes stated herein for such funds regardless of whether they are fully expended during the tenn of this Decree.
Claims Process and Distribution of Class Fund 17. Introduction. The Class Fund shall be used to make payments to AfricanAmericans who timely submit Claim Fonns and satisfy the eligibility criteria set forth herein (such persons are hereinafter referred to as "Qualified Claimants"). The identification and detennination of Qualified Claimants and the detennination of the amount of monetary relief to be received by any Qualified Claimant shall be accomplished as described in paragraphs 18 through 23 below. No persons other than Qualified Claimants or their representatives shall receive any payments from the Class Fund, except as otherwise provided in this Decree. 18. Identification of Potential Qualified Claimants. Qualified Claimants will be selected from among the members of the "Potential Claimant Pool," and the members of the Potential Claimant Pool will be detennined as follows: The Potential Claimant Mailing List will include each of the 131 African Americans (some of whom responded to the EEOC's mailings to all unsuccessful applicants for the period January 1, 1994, through May 31, 1998, and a list of whom has been supplied by the EEOC to TIC) and each of those individuals in TIC's Applicant Log through November 30,2002, who are identified in the Log as being Black and as not having been hired; provided that TIC will have thirty (30) days from the Effective Date within which to identify in writing to the EEOC those individuals, if any, who should not be included in the Potential Claimant Mailing List because the individual (1) is not African American or (2) was, in fact, hired to work on the TIC project to which he or she submitted an application for work, when it is that application upon which is based the detennination that he or she was an unsuccessful applicant. No mailings or other means of solicitation or communication shall be used to generate names for the Potential Claimant Mailing List.
7 Consent Decree

Should a person contact the EEOC and present objective and independently verifiable evidence that he or she meets the requirements to be a Qualified Claimant, then the EEOC shall provide notice to TIC of its intent to include that person in the Potential Claimant Mailing List, together with the evidence demonstrating that the person meets the requirements to be a Qualified Claimant. The person shall be included in the Potential Claimant Mailing List unless, within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice and the evidence, TIC provides the EEOC with written notice of its objection to inclusion of that person in the Potential Claimant Mailing List and a statement of the reason for the objection. If the EEOC and TIC are unable to reach agreement on whether the person should be included in the Potential Claimant Mailing List, the dispute shall be submitted to the Magistrate Judge.
TIC and the EEOC have reached agreement upon a Claim Form and the text of the cover letter for the Claim Form, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits One and Two respectively. Once the composition of the Potential Claimant Mailing List has been established, as described above, the EEOC will advise TIC of the "~tart Date," on or after which the EEOC may begin mailing cover letters and Claim Forms to each individual on the Potential Claimant Mailing List. The "End Date" shall be that date ninety (90) days after the Start Date. The Potential Claimant Pool shall be comprised of those individuals on the Potential Claimant Mailing List who return to the EEOC a completed and executed Claim Form which is received by the EEOC or is postmarked on or before the End Date. No individual whose Claim Form is not received or postmarked on or before the End Date shall be included in the Potential Claimant Pool, unless he or she can demonstrate to the Court good cause why he or she was unable to timely return the Claim Form (for example, being out of the country during the time of the delivery of the Claim Form to the date the Claim Form was due to be returned.).
19. !nitial S~~~L~~!~~___~f_Q!!!']'f~d _~1_~l~~I!~~n_<L_l2et~!:minat!~!1_~!-.Monetary Relief. The EEOC shall examine all Claim Forms received from members of the Potential Claimant Pool and make an initial determination of which individuals it considers to be Qualified Claimants. as the term "Qualified Claimant" is ddi.ned in paragraph 22 of this Decree. For each
8
Consent D.:-cree

indi vidual which it initially determines to be a Qualified Claimant, the EEOC shall also make a determination as to the amount of the monetary remedy which it believes should be awarded to that Qualified Claimant. Within 60 days after the End Date, the EEOC shall provide to TIC a list of all Qualified Claimants, copies of their Claim Forms, and the amounts proposed to be allocated to each of them from the Class Fund. TIC shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of that list (the "Objection Date") within which to notify the EEOC of any objections to the eligibility of any claimant to receive compensation and to provide the EEOC with an explanation of TIC's reasons for objection, with any supporting documentation TIC may have. If TIC does not notify the EEOC of its objection to the EEOC's initial determination as to a particular claimant by on or before the Objection Date, that individual shall become a Qualified Claimant and, upon execution of the required release, shall receive the recommended amount of compensation. If TIC objects to the EEOC's initial determination with regard to a claimant, that determination shall be dealt with as a "disputed claim" in accordance with the procedures of Paragraph 20 below.
The sole grounds on which TIC may object to the EEOC's initial determination as to a particular claimant's status as a Qualified Claimant are (a) that TIC would not have hired the individual because he or she failed a drug test at the time of application for employment, (b) that the individual was, in fact, hired to work on a TIC project within sixty (60) days of the date upon which he or she submitted the application upon which is based the determination that he or she was an unsuccessful applicant, (c) that the claimant lacked a license or training certification required for the position for which the claimant applied, (d) that the claimant refused employment offered by TIC, (e) that claimant was offered employment by TIC but failed to appear for work as scheduled, and/or (f) that the individual is not Black. The EEOC's Jetermination of an individual as a Qualified Claimant shall be presumed _by the _Magistrate Judge to be correct, and TIC shall bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that any such person is not a Qualified Claimant based on one or more of grounds (a), (b)" (c), (d), (e) or (f) enumerated in this paragraph. TIC shall play no role in, and may not object to, the
'J
Consent Decree

amount allocated by the EEOC to any Qualified Claimant, provided, however, that in no event shall that amount exceed the Standard Individual Compensation Limit defined and imposed by Paragraph 23 of this Decree, namely $20,000.
20. Magistrate Judge and Resolution of Disputed Cl_ai!1!~. The Magistrate Judge shall be the claims arbiter in the event of a disputed claim. In the event TIC and the EEOC cannot reach agreement on the eligibility of any claimant, the final decision shall be made by the Magistrate Judge, whose decisions shall be binding. If TIC objects to the eligibility of any claimant to receive compensation, TIC shall have sixty (60) days from the date of TIC's written notice to the EEOC of its objection, to file with the Magistrate Judge a written notice of the disputed claim and any documents and argument supporting TIC's position with respect to the disputed claim. The EEOC shall have thirty (30) days from the date on which TIC files its notice of the disputed claim with the Magistrate Judge within which to submit to the Magistrate Judge the EEOC's response. The Magistrate Judge will issue his final decision (the "Claims Decision") to the EEOC and TIC, in writing, regarding any such disputed claim(s). If the Magistrate Judge determines that an individual is not a Qualified Claimant, no further action will be taken with regard to that claimant, except to provide notice as provided herein. If the Magistrate Judge determines that an individual is in fact, a Qualified Claimant, then that Qualified Claimant will receive the monetary remedy determined by the EEOC, unless it ex.ceeds the Standard Individual Compensation Limit. In that case, the Claims Arbiter shall reduce the amount to the Standard Individual Compensation Limit. To the extent possible, the Parties shall simultaneously present al] dIsputed claims to the Magistrate Judge for resolution.
Information submitted by the Parties to the Magistrate Judge concerning Disputed Claims and the Magistrate Judge's decisions regarding those Disputed Claims shall be treated as confidential infonnation and shall be sealed and not divulged or made available to the public.
10 Consent Decree

21. Notification. For purposes of the claims determination and objection process as described in this Decree, notification to TIC shall be made by the EEOC by mailing or faxing
same to TIC's counsel, Lawrence W. Marquess, Littler Mendelson, 1200 1t h Street, Suite 2850,
Denver, Colorado 80202, fax no. 303-629-0200, and to TIC's General Counsel, Colin Reid, 2211 Elk River Road, Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477, fax no. 970-879-5052. Notification to the EEOC shall be made by TIC by mailing or faxing same to Keith Hill, Regional Attorney, EEOC, New Orleans District Office, 701 Loyola Avenue, Suite 600, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, fax no. 504-589-2805. Any party may change such addresses by written notice to the other parties, setting forth a new address for this purpose.
22. Defmition of Qualified Claimant. A Qualified Claimant is a Black individual who applied and was rejected for employment by TIC in a construction operator, laborer, or craft worker position between January 1, 1994 and November 30, 2002, and who was qualified for the position sought, unless the Magistrate Judge finds that TIC has met its burden of proof that it would not have hired the individual irrespective of his or her race, as described in Paragraphs ]9 and 20 of this Decree. Provided, however, that, in determining whether or not TIC hired an individual on a project, primary reliance shall be placed on the Marathon, CMIS, or any successor database. TIC agrees that it has a duty to reasonably supplement from other sources, the information contained in these databases when necessary data is not contained therein and to the extent reasonably possible, to correct the information contained in the databases, when it becomes apparent that specific information pertaining to hiring in one or more of the databases i~ inaccurate.
23. C!!~l!.en~?!tion for Qualified Claimants. The amount of compensation for a Qualified Claimant shall be determined in the sole discretion of the EEOC, provided that no Qualified Claimant shall receive more than TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000) (the "Standard Individual Compensation Limit") in compensation under this Decree.
24. Notification of Elig!!Jilitr~~~ M_<!ne!a!1'_~ward. Within forty-five (45) days after the issuance of the Claims Decision with respect to a disputed claim, or within forty-five
11 Conseat Decree

(45) days of the deadline for TIC to object to the eligibility of a proposed claimant, as the case may be, the EEOC shall mail to each person from whom it has received a Claim Form a letter in the appropriate one of the two agreed forms attached as Exhibits Three and Four. If it is determined that the individual is not a Qualified Claimant, he or she will receive a letter in the form of Exhibit Three. If the individual has been determined to be a Qualified Claimant, he or she will receive a letter in the form of Exhibit Four and the Release And Settlement Agreement form ("Release") (Exhibit Five hereto). The letter will also inform the Qualified Claimant that the entire payment will represent taxable income and that applicable taxes will be withheld from any payment.
25. Claims Forms Treated as Confidential. Claim Forms received by the EEOC shall be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed to any other person or entity, except that such Claim Forms will be submitted confidentially to TIC and the Court in accordance with the claims process set forth in this Decree, and shall be stored in the manner in which the EEOC maintains all of its confidential files for a period of at least two (2) years after the cessation of the Consent Decree.
26. Notification of Final Distribution Amount and Release of Claims. The letter referenced in paragraph 24 above will notify the Qualified Claimant of the gross (pre-tax) amount of the payment to which such Qualified Claimant was finally determined to be entitled (hereinafter, the "Notice of Final Gross Settlement Amount"), and shall further notify each Qualified Claimant that in order to receive any monetary payment under this Decree, he or she must execute and deliver to the EEOC the "Release". The letter will inform each Qualified Claimant that such Release must be signed and the signature notarized, and returned to the EEOC so that it is postmarked or received no later than ninety (90) days after the date on which the EEOC mailed the Release and Notice of Final Gross Settlement Amount to such individual.
The letter will also inform each Qualified Claimant that he or she has the option to accept the Final Gross Settlement Amount by executing and returning the Release in the time allowed hereunder or to reject the Final Gross Settlement Amount in which case he or she will retain the
12 Consent Decree

option to pursue any claims that he or she believes he or she may have against TiC. Provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to extend in any way the normal time limits for filing charges under Title VII. The ninetieth (90th) day after the EEOC mailed such letter and Release to the Qualified Claimant shall be known as the "Due Date."
27. Any Qualified Claimant whose executed Release is not postmarked or received by the EEOC on or before the Due Date will be ineligible for and forever barred from receiving any monetary relief under this Decree, unless he or she can demonstrate to the Court good cause why he or she was unable to timely return the Release (for example, being out of the country from the time of the delivery of the Release to the date the Release was due to be returned). However, in no event shall any Eligibl,e Claimant whose executed Release is not postmarked or received by the EEOC on or before the date three hundred (300) days after the date on which the Settlement Checks were mailed by TIC receive any monetary relief under this Decree; all remaining monies in the Class Fund will after such time be disposed of as provided for in paragraph 31, infra.
Within thirty (30) days after the Due Date, the EEOC will provide to TIC a list of all Qualified Claimants who have accepted the Final Gross Settlement Amount by executing and timely returning Releases, and the original of each Release.
28. Distribution of Final Settlement Amounts. Within twenty-one (21) days after the EEOC provides TIC with a list of the Qualified Claimants who have accepted the Final Gross Settlement Amount by executing and timely returning Releases and the amounts to be distributed from the Class Fund to each of them, TIC will mail the checks to the Qualified Claimants ("Settlement Checks") and shall promptly determine if any checks are returned or are not cashed after a period of Sixty (60) days has elapsed from the date on which the Settlement Checks were mailed by TIC. TIC will provide the EEOC with copies and proof of mailing of the Settlement Checks within thirty (30) days of their mailing. The EEOC may take, at its expense, further steps to communicate with those Qualified Claimants who did not receive and/or deposit their Settlement Checks.
13 Consent Decree

29. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the compensation received by any Qualified Claimant under this Decree shall be "wages," within the meaning of Section 3401 of the Internal Revenue Code, and all legally-required deductions from those wages, including but not limited to federal and state income taxes and withholding under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act ("FICA") and Federal Unemployment Tax Act ("FUTA"), shall be withheld from the Qualified Claimant's check and forwarded to the appropriate governmental agency. TIC shall issue a W-2 to the Qualified Claimant for this portion of the compensation. The employer's share of FICA and FUTA taxes for each Qualified Claimant shall likewise be taken from the principal of the Class Fund and forwarded to the appropriate governmental agency. TIC shall have no other responsibility for such taxes or withholding.
The remaining forty-five percent (45%) of the compensation received by a Qualified Claimant under this Decree shall be compensatory damages for emotional harm. As such, that portion (45%) of the compensation is not "wages" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code and is not subject to FICA, FUTA, and other employment taxes. TIC shall issue a Form 1099 to the Qualified Claimant for this portion (45%) of his or her compensation under the Decree, and the Qualified Claimant shall be solely responsible for the payment of any and all taxes owed on that portion (45%) of compensation received under this Decree.
30. Class Fund Administrative_. Expenses All claims administration expenses, related to tasks for which TIC is responsible under this decree, including but not limited to, all costs associated with the creation of the Class Fund and Class Fund Account, and all costs related to the issuance and mailing of checks from the Class Fund, will be borne by TIC. Such expenses may not be paid from the principal of the C!ass Fund.
31. ~J~~~Fund__~l!!Elus In the event that any portion of the principal of the Class Fund has not been distributed to Qualified Claimants after a period of three hundred (300) days has elapsed from the date on which the Settlement Checks were mailed by TIC, then such remaining amounts from the principal of the Class Fund shall be dedicated to one or more of the following: (a) support of two or more reputable trade schools or colleges, the number and
14 Consent Decree

identities of which will be jointly decided by the EEOC and TIC; and (b) scholarships for students in such trade schools or colleges.
32. Q.!:lalified Claimants Status Database To facilitate oversight by the Commission and TIC of the claims administration process and of other undertakings set forth herein, so that the Parties may timely respond to any appropriate inquiries regarding the status of pending and settled individual claims, the EEOC shall create a database regarding the status and resolution of each such claim and shall provide an updated copy of it to TIC by the thirtieth day of each calendar month, beginning with the month in which occurs the Start Date on and after which the EEOC mails cover letters and Claim Forms to individuals on the Potential Claimant Mailing List.
Non-Monetary Relief 33. Nondiscrimination. TIC shall not discriminate against Blacks in the hiring or recruiting of construction workers. TIC shall not reject or otherwise deny employment to qualified Black applicants for construction job positions or otherwise discriminate against Black applicants and employees because of their race. The Company agrees that it will not retaliate against any person because that person is a beneficiary of this Decree, or has provided information or assistance, or participated in any other manner in any investigation or proceeding relating to the Individual Charges, this litigation, and/or this Decree. In the event that TIC does so discriminate or retaliate, it shall constitute a violation of this Decree, with respect to which violation the EEOC shall have the opportunity to file an enforcement action with this Court. 34. Affirmative measures. A. TIC will make good faith eftorts to attract quahfied African-American applicants for pOSItions on TIC projects as open positions occur. TIC will not discriminate on the basis of race in hiring for open positions on its projects. B. Beginning not later than ninety (90) days after the Effective Date or ninety (90) days after the date of delivery of written notice to TIC of Commission approval of the training
15 C0nsent Decree

outline, whichever is later, TIC shall begin to provide a reasonable amount of training ("Initial Training"), covering the topics set forth in the training outline to all of its hiring officials and managers, subject to reasonable availability of the employees to be trained. This Initial Training shall consist of at least the following: a) TIC's obligations under the Decree; and b) TIC's statutory obligations under Title VII in general, and in particular its obligation not to discriminate on the basis of race in recruiting and hiring decisions. TIC will provide the EEOC with a proposed training outline within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date. The EEOC shall not unreasonably withhold approval of the topics in TIC's proposed training outline.
TIC shall complete this Initial Training not later than one hundred eighty (180) days after the Effective Date or one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of delivery of written notice to TIC of Commission approval of the training outline, whichever is later. TIC shall provide to the EEOC a copy of all training materials used and a certification of the dates of, and attendance at, such training of TIC's hiring officials and managers engaged in hiring for construction positions.
C. TIC will provide training with regard to Equal Employment Opportunity laws enforced by the EEOC in regard to the issue of race discrimination to all of its hiring officials and managers engaged in hiring for construction operator, laborer, and/or craft worker positions, once per calendar year over the life of the Decree. In addition, TIC will continue to provide supervisory and leadership training to supervisory employees. In addition to the current curriculum encompassing general supervisory, management and leadership training, TIC will expand the diversity training initiatives.
D. The Minority Development Account, described above, shall be devoted to funding the Minority Development Program, described as follows:
It is the intent of the Minority Development Program that TIC will direct the funds in the Minority Development Account to those uses listed below in a way which will, in TIC's judgment based on its experience in the construction industry, best accomplish the objectives of the Minority Development Program to
16 Consent Decree

train and recruit Blacks into the construction industry and to prepare them for greater opportunities within the company, including supervisory and management positions.
1. Job Corps recruiting
TIC seeks by this Minority Development Program to hire qualified Black graduates of Job Corps construction training programs into the industrial construction industry. This diverse group of graduates has selected construction as a trade and received basic training on math, blueprint reading, tools and safety, making them ideal candidates for entry-level positions within the company. TIC will partner with Job Corps' on a national level to accomplish this.
2. Targeted Recruiting/Scholarships
TIC shall identify a minimum of two (2) accredited or otherwise legitimate trade, vocational or technical schools that the company will partner with to recruit and train black individuals interested in a career in industrial construction work. The facilities will be chosen for their location, the quality of their curriculum and the quality of their teaching staff.
TIC will review the needs of the selected schools and may provide monetary or other support including, but not limited to, educational materials or supplies, raw materials or subject matter experts. In addition, the company will work with the facilities and provide scholarship opportunities to Black applicants who enroll in these facilities' construction curriculum.
TIC will work with the selected schools to offer and communicate scholarship opportunities to Black applicants. The maximum scholarship amount to anyone individual will be capped at one thousand dollars ($1,000).
TIC will advertise the scholarship opportunities in areas reasonably expected to attract interested Black applicants.
Because the overall intent of this program is to increase the numhers of Blacks entering the industrial construction industry and working for TIC the <.:ompany may find it necessary to reevaluate the targeted schools and substitute different schools during the life of this Decree. TIC will, for the life of this Decree, provide information to the EEOC regarding the targeted schools and status of scholarship recipients within six (6) months ofthe date of entry of this decree and every 12 months thereafter.
3. Focused Recruiting
l7 Consent Decree

TIC will participate in various recruiting efforts that will be focused on minimally and fully skilled Black construction workers. These efforts will include, at a minimum, recruiting from the military, trade schools, vocational schools and high schools.
4. Outreach
TIC will continue its outreach efforts to attract qualified Blacks. TIC shall, through advertising and outreach activities, encourage Black construction workers to apply for employment with TIC. TIC shall consider for employment any person who is qualified for a position and who has an active application on file.
5. Supervisory and Leadership Training Programs.
TIC will continue to provide supervisory and leadership training to supervisory employees. In addition to the current curriculum encompassing general supervisory, management and leadership training, TIC will expand the diversity training initiatives and progress with a comprehensive initiative designed to enhance the culture of inclusion within the company. The inclusion work will be focused on building the foundation within the company to progress towards creating a workplace where everyone can do their best work in an environment of equal opportunity.
6. Account Expenditures
Acceptable expenditures against the Minority Development Fund will include, but not be limited to the following: scholarships, advertising costs, career fair and recruiting booth fees, travel expenses for recruiting trips, and other expenses identified within this section.
7. Minority Development Account Reporting
TIC shall report to the EEOC for the life of the Decree, every 12 months, starting from the Effective Date, on all expenditures from the Minority Development Account.
E. TIC shall. through advertising and outreach activities. cncourage Black
construction workt:rs to apply for employmcnt at TIC. In accord with and subject to TlC's Hiring
Policies applicable to the position, TIC shall consider for employment any person whu is
qualified for a position and who has an active application for that position, on file. Nothing in
this Decree shall be interpreted to change or require changes to TIC's current Hiring Policies and
18 Consent Decree

practices or limit TIC's ability to implement changes to those Policies and/or practices, so long as those Policies and/or practices do not prevent TIC from complying with this Decree.
F. TIC shall, during the life of the Decree, retain all applications for employment in construction positions and all documents pertaining to the hiring of persons into construction positions. In the event that the EEOC asserts a violation of this Decree, TIC shall keep all applications for employment in construction positions and all documents pertaining to the hiring of persons into construction positions until final resolution of the EEOC's claims.
35. Reporting. TIC shall accurately maintain a searchable electronic file reflecting all applications received for construction jobs during the life of the Decree ("Applicant Data"),. indicating in the file the position sought, the name and contact information of the applicant, the race of the applicant (if provided by applicants, including by the applicant in response to the invitation, which TIC shall make to all applicants, to voluntarily identify his or her race, as well as other information), the project identification number, and whether the applicant was hired. TIC shall for the life of the Decree provide the EEOC with the Applicant Data and the applications every twelve (12) months starting 12 months from the date of the entry of this Decree. The Applicant Data shall be provided to the EEOC in ASCII format, or in some other computerized format mutually agreed to by the Parties. TIC shall also provide with each report enclosing the Applicant Data a computerized list in ASCII format (or some other format mutually agreed to by the Parties) of all project sites indicating which project identification numbers correspond to which project locations.
Unless otherwise specified herein, TIC shall for the life of the Decree report to the EEOC once every twelve (12) months, starting from the Effective Date, on TIC's a(;tions in compiiance with this Decree. TIC shall, within sixty (60) days of written request from the EEOC, provide the EEOC with access on reasonable notice to the documentation, which supports the reports, which TIC makes under this Decree. The EEOC shall be entitled to copies of all such documentation, to be made by TIC (or a designated agent), at the EEOC's expense.
19 Const:nt Decree

36. Confidentiality. All reports, infonnation, and documents submitted to the EEOC under this Decree shall be treated as confidential and shall not be provided to any non-Party to this Decree, except that such reports, infonnation and documents may be reviewed by such experts or similar non-Parties as are engaged by either of the Parties to advise the Party concerning issues related to compliance with the Decree. No such report, infonnation or document shall be used by the EEOC for any purpose other than the enforcement of this Decree and such actions or reports as are required to meet the EEOC's constitutional and statutory obligations. Before disclosing infonnation to any such expert, the disclosing Party shall advise the expert that the infonnation is confidential and that any use or disclosure of the infonnation for any reason or purpose other than to advise the Parties concerning issues related to compliance with the Decree will violate this Consent Decree and may be punishable as contempt of Court.
Additional Terms 37. This Decree shall not constitute an adjudication and/or finding on the merits of the case. By entering into this Decree, the Company does not admit that the allegations of the Complaint and/or the Commission's findings with respect to the Individual Charges were correct. The Company denies that any of its acts, omissions, programs or practices has at any time violated Title VII or any other federal, state or local law. The Decree does not constitute evidence of any violation by the Company of Title VII or any other federal state or local law, regulation, or order. The Commission shall not seek to use this Decree or the fact of its existence as evidence in any other matter involving the Company other than an action for enforcement of this Decree. 38. If one or more provisions of this Decree are rendered unlawful or unenforceable as a result of a legislative act, or a decision by a cOUl1 of competent jurisdiction, the Parties shall endeavor to agree upon which amendments to this Decree, if any, are appropriate to effectuate the intent of the Parties. To the extent the remaining provisions of this Decree are not rendered unlawful, unenforceable, or incapable of perfonnance as a result of such legislative act or court decision, such remaining provisions shall remam in full force and effect, and the PartIes'
20 Consent Decree

responsibilities shall not abate as to any and all provisions that have not been rendered unlawful or unenforceable, except to the extent that the intent of the parties would be undennined. In the event the intent of one or both of the Parties is undennined, the Parties shall attempt to negotiate such amendments to this Decree, subj ect to approval by the Court, as shall cause the Decree to again achieve the basic intent of the Parties. Should the Parties fail to reach such an agreement, one or both Parties may submit the issue to the Court for resolution. If the Court finds that the Decree cannot be refonned in a way, which meets the basic intents of the Parties, all of the Parties' responsibilities under this Decree will be deemed vacated.
39. The tenns of this Decree are the product of joint negotiations and shall not be construed as having been authored by one party rather than the other.
40. Nothing in this Decree abridges or undennines the right of applicants, employees or fonner employees to file charges with appropriate local and state agencies and/or the Commission to seek protection pursuant to local, state and/or federal employment discrimination laws except to the extent they have waived these rights by execution of a Release as a Qualified Claimant under this Decree.
41. Nothing in this Decree shall be deemed to waive or stay the running of any statute of limitations or deadline by which any person, party or claimant must file a charge or complaint with any administrative agency or file a complaint in court or take other action, or to reinstate the right of any person to take any action for which the time within which that action must be taken has passed.
42. Press Release and Media Contacts. The EEOC and TIC have agreed on a joint press release which is attached as Exhibit Six (the "Press Release"). The Press Release shall be released by both the EEOC and TIC shortly after the entry by the Court of this Consent Decree. Both the EEOC and TIC may post this Press Release on their respective websites and may distribute this Press Release to media organizations.
21 Consent Decree

- - - - - - - - - - - ----
43. Enforcement of Decree. The EEOC and TIC will make best efforts to effectuate the terms of this Decree. TIC shall within 30 days of the Effective Date designate a compliance official who shall be responsible for coordinating and overseeing TIC's compliance with this Decree and for communications with the EEOC concerning the Decree. TIC shall within 30 days of such designation inform the EEOC of the name and contact information of said compliance official.
Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, the EEOC shall designate a "Contact Person" to whom TIC may direct all communications, including inquiries concerning this Decree, and who shall be responsible for providing timely answers on behalf of the EEOC. The EEOC shall within 30 days of such designation inform TIC of the name and contact information of said Contact Person.
44. The EEOC and TIC shall each have independent authority to seek the judicial enforcement of any aspect, term or provision of this Decree and to take appropriate measures to effectuate enforcement of this Consent Decree and any of its terms or provisions when it believes there has been a breach.
45. Dispute Resolution Procedure. If at any time during the duration of this Decree, it is alleged by the EEOC or TIC that a violation of its terms has occurred or a dispute arises over its interpretation, the EEOC or TIC may seek by motion to the Court to enforce compliance with its terms. The EEOC may, within one year after its receipt from TIC of a report required by and in compliance with this Decree, file a motion alleging that a violation of the terms of the Decree occurred based upon that report. If the EEOC learns of facts which it believes establishes a
22
Consent Decree

violation of the Decree by means other than a report from TIC, then the EEOC shall have one year from the date on which it learned of such facts within which to file a motion alleging a violation of the Decree. TIC may file a motion alleging that a violation of the terms of the Decree has occurred within one year of the time that it knew or should have known of the facts upon which it bases its allegation. Provided, however, that no Party may initiate a motion alleging a violation of the Consent Decree more than five (5) years after the Effective Date of the Consent Decree. Prior to filing a motion to enforce this Decree or resolve any dispute over its terms, the Party alleging a violation will notify the other Party in writing, stating the nature of its concerns. The Party alleged to have violated the Decree shall respond in writing within twenty (20) days. Thereafter, the Parties will conduct a face to face or telephonic meeting to attempt in good faith to informally resolve those concerns. The EEOC and TIC may seek assistance from the Court in resolving any disputes. If the Parties are unable to reach a resolution, only then may the Commission or TIC move to enforce the Decree. The moving Party must attach to its motion a certification that the Parties have attempted to resolve the matter without court intervention.
46. The Court will take whatever measures it deems appropriate to etfectuate the enforcement of the terms of this Decree.
47. Nothing in this Decree is intended to confer upon any person other than the EEOC and/or TIC the right to seek enforcement of this Consent Decree or of any of the terms contained herein.
48. The Parties shall keep confidential the names of all Qualified Claimants and the amounts that each received under this Decree, except to the extent disclosure may be necessary to enforce a Release, to respond to inaccurate representations concerning the amount received by a Qualitied Claimant, or for any other legitimate reason consistent with the terms of this Decree.
49. The EEOC and TIC shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees associated with this litigation and neither shall seek reimbursement for any investigative and/or litigation costs, fees or expenses in this matter, including but not limited to any costs or attorney's fees incurred in connection with enforcement and/or interpretation of this Consent Decree.
73 Consent Decree
- ---- -- - - -

50. The EEOC shall maintain and observe confidentiality with respect to documents pertaining to this dispute as required by applicable rules, regulations, and laws concerning the maintenance of government records. Within six (6) months of the expiration of this Consent Decree, or within six (6) months from the final resolution of any enforcement action brought relative to this Decree, whichever is later, the EEOC shall return to TIC any and all documents and electronic data bases provided by TIC to the EEOC in connection with this Consent Decree, and/or in response to discovery in this action and any information copied therefrom and shall not thereafter utilize any such documents or information in any pending or subsequent investigation or lawsuit.
51. Six (6) months after expiration of this Consent Decree or six (6) months after the final resolution of any claims of breach of this Consent Decree which might be filed with the Court, whichever is later, the Complaint in this action and all claims raised therein against TIC will be dismissed, with prejudice, with each Party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.
52. The EEOC may not distribute, disclose or otherwise disseminate now or at any time in the future, any documents or information contained in its investigative file regarding the Individual Charges or obtained during its investigation of those Charges, or during and as part of this litigation, unless such documents are part of the public record. In any case, the EEOC shall not distribute or disclose such documents and/or information without first providing adequate written notice (at least 60 days) to TIC such that TIC may object and, if necessary, initiate legal action to prevent the proposed distribution, disclosure or dissemination. The EEOC shall not disclose or disseminate to anyone at any time any reports (including attachments) filed by TIC as required in this Decree, except as may be required to enforce this Decree.
53. Computation of Time Periods. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Decree, unless otherwise stated, such computation shall be made consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
54. TIC Not Required to Violate Existing Law. TIC is not required by this Consent Decree to violate any applicable law, order, ordinance, or regulation as interpreted by controlling
24
Consent Decree

judicial authority. This paragraph applies to final decisions of all Federal and State courts and agencies with jurisdiction over TIC and to all court orders naming TIC. In the event of any conflict between federal law and state or local law, ordinance, or regulation, federal law shall govern.
55. Notices. Except as is otherwise provided for in this Decree, all notifications, reports and communications to the Parties required under this Decree shall be made in writing and shall be sufficient as hand-delivered, faxed or sent by certified or registered mail to the following persons (or their designated successors): For TIC: Lawrence W. Marquess, Littler Mendelson, 1200 17th Street, Suite 2850, Denver, Colorado 80202, fax no. 303-629-0200; and Colin Reid, TIC-The Industrial Company, 2211 Elk River Road, Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477, fax no. 970-879-5052. For EEOC: Keith Hill, Regional Attorney, EEOC, New Orleans District Office, 701 Loyola Avenue, Suite 600, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, fax no. 504-5892805. Any party may change such addresses by written notice to the other parties, setting forth a new address for this purpose. Notwithstanding the provisions for notification contained in this paragraph, the Parties may send each other such notifications, reports and communications by facsimile transmission.
56. The agreements of the Parties stated in paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Decree are incorporated into and treated as part of this Order.

\t'\ _1-_ SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this

day of

,2003.

LanceMC =)
United States Distnct Court Judge

25 Consent Decree

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
* * * * *
FOR DEFENDANT, TIC - THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY:
* * * * *
FOR PLAINTIFF, THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION:
-'----f+---¥--=--r-=----+----'-----t-----
26 Consent Decree

EXHIBIT ONE TO CONSENT DECREE
u.s. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. TIC-The Industrial Company and TIC Holdings, Inc.
Case No. 01-1776 (E.D.La.)
CLAIM FORM
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. TIC-THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY Civil Action No. 01-1776 (E.D.La.)
Instructions: Please answer every numbered question to.establish your claim. Please
provide as much information as possible. Feel free to write on the back of this t<mn or to
add additional pages as needed. If you are unsure of any information, particularly dates, please approximate and write "approx." If you do not know the answer to a question, please answer with "I don't know."

1. Name:
~-------~
2. Race: (check one): ()B1ack, ()White, ()Hispanic, () Other

3. Social Security Number:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

4. Current Mailing Address

~-------------------------

City/State:

Zip Code:

------------~--~~~----~-

- ~---

-----

5. Home Telephone Number (including area code):

)

6. Daytime Telephone (including area code): ."--(__-----'-)'----_________________

7. Have you ever been employed by TIC-The Industrial Company? Yes () No ( )

8. Have you ever submitted an application for a job with TIC-The Industrial Company? Yes () NO ()

9. If your answer to question 8 was "Yes," how many times have you submitted an application for a job with TIC-The Industrial Company?

10. For each time that you submitted an application to TIC-The Industrial Company, please answer the following questions:
(i) On what date did you submit the application?

(ii) Where did you submit the application?
(iii) For what position(s) (e.g. pipefitter, carpenter, welder etc.) did you submit the application?
(iv) Where was the position for which you applied located (e.g. city, county, state, name of project, etc.)?
(v) Were you offered a position with TIC after you submitted the application? () Yes () No

NOTE: YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LAWSUIT.

MAILING INSTRUCTIONS

After signing below, this Claim Form must be 'mailed or otherwise delivered to the United

States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission so that it is postmarked or actually

received by no later than

. The address is as follows:

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [Address]

SIGNATURE

I, (print name)

, declare, under penalty of perjury that all of the

information contained on this fonn is true and correct.

Claimant

Date

2

EXHIBIT TWO TO CONSENT DECREE
u.s. Equal Employmellt Opportunity Commission
v. TIC-The Indu.~trial Company and TIC Holdings, Inc.
Case No. 01-1776 (E.D.La.)
CONSENT DECREE CLAIM FORM COVER LETTER

[Address of Potential Claimant]

Re: Claim Form for Participation in Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement

Dear - -
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and TIC - The Industrial Company ("TIC") have settled a lawsuit brought by the EEOC against TIC, alleging that TIC's hiring policies during the period January 1, 1994 through November 30, 2002, had had the effect of discriminating against Black individuals who were qualified for and applied for positions with TIC as craft workers. Although the allegations have not been proven and TIC denies that it has ever discriminated against Black individuals applying for work on its projects, TIC and the EEOC have agreed to settle the lawsuit in order to avoid the disruptions, costs, and delays of going to trial. As a result, a fund has been set up from which to compensate individuals who demonstrate that they are "Qualified Claimants" under the terms of the settlement.

As a result of a review of TIC's records, it has been determined that you may be a "Qualified Claimant" and entitled to participate in the fund. In order to make that determination, it is necessary that you provide the information, in as great a detail as possible, requested in the accompanying Claim Form.

Should you wish to be considered for participation, it is necessary that you complete and execute

the Claim Fonn and return it to the EEOC at the address stated in the "Mailing Instructions" on

the Claim Form, so that the completed and executed Claim Form is received by the EEOC or is

postmarked on or before

,2003. If you submit the completed Claim Form,

the information which you provide in the Claim Form, together with infonnation from other

sources, will be used to determine whether you are a "Qualified Claimant" and thus, eligible to

participate in the settlement fund. After your completed Claim Form is received and considered,

you will be notified by mail as to whether you have been determined to be a "Qualified

Claimant. "

Failure to return the completed and signed Claim Form on time will preclude you from being considered for participation.

If you have any questions, you may call _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ at ______

EXHIBIT THREE TO CONSENT DECREE
u.s. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. TIC-The Industrial Company and TIC Holdings, Inc.
Case No. 01-1776 (E.D.La.)
NOTIFICATION - INELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE
[Address ofIneligible Individual]
Re: Notification of Ineligibility To Participate in Settlement
Dear - - As you know, you recently submitted through the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Claim Fonn to be used in detennining whether you are a qualified claimant entitled to participate in the proceeds of a settlement of a lawsuit between the EEOC and TICThe Industrial Company. The infonnation which you submitted on the Claim Fonn has been thoroughly evaluated, together with infonnation from other sources, and it has been detennined that you are not eligible to participate in the settlement. If you have any questions, you may contact -------------, at -------------Very truly yours,

EXHIBIT FOUR TO CONSENT DECREE
u.s. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. TIC- The Industrial Company and TIC Holdings, Inc.
Case No. 01-1776 (E.D.La.)
CONSENT DECREE NOTIFICATION -ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE
[Address]

Dear - - -

As you know, you recently submitted through the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("EEOC"), a Claim Form to be considered in determining whether you are a

"Qualified Claimant" who is eligible to participate in the proceeds of a settlement of a lawsuit

between the EEOC and TIC - The Industrial Company ("TIC"). After thorough evaluation of

the information which you included in your Claim Form, together with information from other

sources, it has been detennined that you are a Qualified Claimant and that, subject to certain

conditions described below and in the enclosed "Settlement And Release Of Claims" form, you

are entitled to receive a one-time payment in the gross amount of $

. The entire payment

will represent taxable income to you. You will be issued a W-2 fonn, reflecting that portion of

your payment attributable to wages, from which taxes, including income taxes, FICA, and FUTA

will be withheld. For the remainder of the payment, you will be issued a Form 1099. Taxes will

not be withheld from the amount reported on the Fonn 1099, and you will be responsible for

payment of any taxes owed on that amount.

If you want to participate in the settlement and to receive this payment, you must complete and sign the enclosed "Settlement and Release of Claims" and have your signature notarized. You must then return the signed and notarized "Settlement And Release of Claims," together with the original of this cover letter, to the EEOC at the address set forth above. The letter and release fonn must be received by the EEOC, or at least postmarked by, no later than 90 days from the "Date of Mailing" of this letter. The "Date of Mailing" is stated at the bottom of this letter. Please check the box near the bottom of this letter, indicating that you do wish to participate in the settlement and that you are enclosing the signed and notarized "Settlement And Release Of Claims," sign where indicated at the bottom of this letter, and return the original, with the original "Settlement And Release Of Claims," to the EEOC at the address above. You should keep copies of this letter and the signed release for your records.

If you detennine that you do not wish to participate in the settlement, please check the box below, indicating that you have decided not to participate in the settlement, sign below, and

return the original of this cover letter to the EEOC at the address above within 90 days of the "Date of Mailing."
Failure to return the signed and notarized "Settlement And Release Of Claims" and this cover lettcr so that they are postmarked or received by the EEOC on or before 90 days from the "Date of Mailing," will be taken as an indication that you do not wish to participate in the settlement, and you will be ineligible to participate in the settlement.
If you have any questions, you may contact _ _ _ _ _ _ _ at
Very truly yours,

I have considered the opportunity to participate in the settlement set forth in the letter, above, and decided:
D I DO wish to participate in the settlement and enclose with this letter the completcd, signed and notarized Settlement And Release of Claims. I understand that the check representing my participation in this settlement will be mailed to me at the address above.
D I DO NOT wish to participate in the settlement and therefore, am not returning the Settlement And Release of Claims. I understand that because I have made this choice, I am not eligible to receive any payment under the settlement.

(Signature)

Date: - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DATE OF MAILING:
(This is to be treated as the otlicial date on which this letter from the EEOC was mailed to you. In order for you to participate in the settlement, your response and the executed Settlement And Release Of Claims, must be received by the EEOC or be postmarked no later than 90 days from this date.)

EXHIBIT FIVE TO CONSENT DECREE
u.s. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. TIC-The Industrial Company and TIC Holdings, Inc.
Case No. 01-1776 (E.D.La.)

SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS BY [Insert Name}

1. I,

[Print your name], Social Security No.

whose

current

home

address

is

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, understand that TIC-The Industrial Company

("TIC") and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") have

agreed to settle the EEOC's Complaint in Civil Action No. 01-1776, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which alleges that TIC's recruiting and hiring practices for

construction workers have had the effect of discriminating against Blacks in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 V.S.c. §2000e et seq.

2. I understand that TIC absolutely denies the EEOC's charges of discrimination and that there has been no determination in the lawsuit that the EEOC's claims have merit or that TIC has in any way discriminated against Blacks. I understand that TIC has agreed to settle the case only to avoid the disruption and costs involved in defending the case.

3. I also understand that, because I have been determined to be a "Qualified

Claimant" under the Consent Decree by which TIC and the EEOC have settled the case, TIC has

agreed to pay to me the gross amount of

dollars, less legally-required

withholding and taxes, provided that I agree to the terms of and execute this Settlement and

Release of Claims ("Release"). The amount TIC actually pays me will be less than the amount

stated in the previous sentence because TIC will withhold taxes from that amount as required by

local, state and federal law. I understand that I will remain solely responsible for any tax liability

related to my receipt of this payment.

4. In exchange for TIC's payment to me described in paragraph 3, above, I agree to release TIC (including its parent company, subsidiary companies, affiliated companies, and its and their officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives attorneys, successors and assigns) from any and all claims, whether known or unknown, related in any way to my application or applications for employment and/or to TIC's recruitment, hiring, or employment practices, policies, and/or actions, which claims (1) existed at or before the date on which I execute this Release and/or (2) arise from and/or are based in any way, in whole or in part, on facts or actions which occurred on or before the date on which I execute this Release. Without limiting the scope of the language above, I understand that I am releasing any and all claims I might have against TIC for failing to hire me because of my race during the period January I, 1994, to December 31, 2002, including but not limited to, claims under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and any similar local or state statutes. I also agree not to file any

administrative charge or complaint in court or to take any other action to prosecute those claims which I release.

5. I understand and agree that, by making the payment described in paragraph 3, above, TIC does not admit that it has committed any violation of any law, that it has discriminated against me, or that it has acted improperly towards me in any way. TIC denies any such allegation.

6. I understand and agree that I am to keep the amount and nature of this payment confidential and not publicize it to others.

7. By my signature on this Release, I certify that I have read this Release carefully and that I understand the meaning of this Release and that by signing it and accepting the payment described in paragraph 3, I am forever giving up the right to pursue any legal claims described above that I may have against TIC and others related to TIC. I also certifY that I understand that I had the opportunity to review this Release with an attorney chosen by me, before signing it, and that if I did not choose to seek the assistance of an attorney, I made that decision freely and without coercion.

Signature

I,

, declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have read the

Release and that all of the statements and infonnation contained in the Release are true and .

correct.

Signature
Printed Name Date of Signature:------------------------

STATE OF ----------------------- ) )ss.

COUNTY OF _________

)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _ _ day of _ _ __ 20o_, by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.

My Commission Expires

Notary Public

EXHIBIT SIX TO CONSENT DECREE
u.s. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. TIC-Tire Industrial Company and TIC Holdings, Inc.
Case No. 01-1776 (E.D.La.)
Agreed Joint Press Release

JOINT PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March _, 2003

CONTACT: TTY:

Patricia Bivins District Director (504) 589-3842
or Keith T. Hill Regional Attorney (504) 589-3844 (504) 589-2958
or Colin Reid General Counsel-TIC (970) 879-2561, ext. 3774

EEOC AND TIC-THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY SETTLE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT
**********************
African Americans to Benefit from Consent Decree
NEW ORLEANS - The U.S. Equal. Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and TIC-The Industrial Company (TIC) today announced the entry of a $2,500,000 settlement of a class racial discrimination lawsuit filed against the Steamboat Springs, Colorado-based industrial construction company. (EEOC v. TIC-The Industrial Company, C.A. No. 01-1776, E.D. La). The settlement, by Consent Decree, has been approved by U.S. District Court Judge Lance Africk.
The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that TIC violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to recruit and hire African Americans into construction positions.
TIC has denied the allegations made by the EEOC.

EEOC AND TIC SETTLE DISCRIMINATION SUIT FOR $2.5 MILLION Page 2
Under the tenns of the Consent Decree, TIC specifically denies any wrongdoing, but agrees to enter into the Consent Decree to avoid protracted litigation. The Consent Decree provides for TIC to pay $2,300,000 in damages to be allocated to African Americans who unsuccessfully applied for work as construction workers with TIC between January I, 1994 and November 30, 2002. In addition, TIC will pay $200,000 to establish a Minority Development Program. This program is intended by TIC to benefit African Americans by preparing them for employment in construction positions. The program will include the distribution of funds to facilitate educational and employment opportunities for prospective TIC employees. TIC also agrees to continue rigorous enforcement of its existing policies prohibiting'discrimination, and to provide mandatory training to supervisors concerning the avoidance of racial discrimination and hiring. The tenn of the Consent Decree is three years.
"The issues raised in this lawsuit are extremely important and go to the heart of the federal anti-discrimination laws," said Keith Hill, Regional Attorney of the EEOC's New Orleans District Office. "It is fundamental to the notion of equal employment opportunity that all candidat~s be considered for ajob based on their qualifications and without regard to race or any other illegitimate basis. During the next three years, the EEOC will work with TIC to ensure that the procedures put in place by this Consent Decree will be administered properly."
Gary McKenzie, President of TIC, said, "Under this agreement, TIC will supplement its already extensive diversity training program, which is one of the principal elements of the commitment to diversity within our company. We appreciate the EEOC's attitude and cooperation in working with us to achieve an agreement that helps us achieve our goal in increasing participation of African Americans in the construction industry and in our workforce in particular. TIC does not and will not tolerate discrimination in its workplace on the basis of race. While we continue to deny the EEOC's allegations, we feel this settlement is in the best interest of all involved."
In addition to enforcing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and
2

EEOC AND TIC SETTLE DISCRIMINATION SUIT FOR $2.5 MILLION Page 2 protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits gender-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's website at www.ccoc.gov.
###
3

 
 EEOC SUES MAJOR CONSTRUCTION FIRM FOR WIDESPREAD RACE DISCRIM... Page 1 of 2

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 11, 2001

CONTACT: New Orleans District Office Keith T. Hill, Regional Attorney (504) 589-3844 Patricia Bivins District Director (504) 589-3842
TTY: (504) 589-2958

EEOC SUES MAJOR CONSTRUCTION FIRM FOR WIDESPREAD RACE DISCRIMINATION

NEW ORLEANS - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today filed a race discrimination lawsuit against TIC - The Industrial Company (TIC) and TIC Holdings, Inc. (TICH), one of the nation's largest industrial construction firms, alleging discrimination in recruiting and hiring on behalf of a class of up to 600 African-American construction workers nationwide.
EEOC's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, charges TIC with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on a nationwide basis since at least 1994 by denying employment to AfricanAmericans in construction positions because of their race.
"This lawsuit sends a loud and clear message to employers in Louisiana and across the country that such widespread race discrimination will not go unchallenged by the federal government," said Keith T. Hill, regional attorney for EEOC's New Orleans District Office, which filed the suit. "It is appalling to think that nearly 37 years after the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 that some large employers still have not gotten the message that discriminating against individual groups because of their race is a serious violation of the law."
The unlawful employment practices cited in the suit include, but are not limited to, a specific set of written policies, procedures, and rules dictating the manner in which individuals are to be recruited and hired. The suit also alleges that, in the alternative, the discrimination is the result of facially neutral policies and practices which may have an unintentional "disparate impact" on African-Americans as a class.
Patricia Bivins, director of the agency's New Orleans office, said: "Unfortunately, some employers continue to implement racially discriminatory hiring and recruiting practices on a national scale. Every employer across the country should be aware that EEOC will not hesitate to vigorously enforce the antidiscrimination laws to eradicate such egregious conduct from the workplace."
EEOC's suit seeks a permanent injunction enjoining TIC and TICH from refusing to hire, and from failing to recruit, individuals because they are African-American, as well as prohibiting other employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race. In addition, EEOC is asking the court to order TIC and TICH to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for persons of all races, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices. EEOC also seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for all individuals affected by the discrimination, and an order requiring TIC to pay punitive damages to EEOC as a complaining party.
TIC, a national construction company with approximately 5,000 employees, focuses on power, cement,

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-11-01.html

6/12/2007

EEOC SUES MAJOR CONSTRUCTION FIRM FOR WIDESPREAD RACE DISCRIM... Page 2 of 2
mining, industrial, process, coal, marine, water/wastewater, pulp and paper, food and beverage, and related market construction. The company has annual contract awards exceeding $500 million with offices in Denver, Steamboat Springs, and Sedalia Colorado; Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia; Bakersfield and Carlsbad, California; Tualatin, Oregon; Kansas City, Missouri; St. Paul, Minnesota; Casper, Wyoming; and Houston, Texas. The company also does business in Louisiana and has heavy construction operations in facilities across the United States.
Race discrimination charges filed with EEOC account for the highest percentage of all charge filings, a trend that has remained consistent throughout the Commission's history. In Fiscal Year 2000, EEOC received 28,945 race discrimination charge filings nationwide, accounting for 36% of all charges filed with the agency.
In addition to enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal sector; sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991; and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments. Further information about EEOC is available on its Web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on June 11, 2001.
Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-11-01.html

6/12/2007

 
 • •

us

fILED DISTRICT COURT

EAS·T£f<H DISTRICT OF LA

loot JUN " PM \: 1.1
P LORETREGR~HYTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

§

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff

§

§

v.

§

§

TIC - THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY

§

and

§

TIC HOLDINGS, INC.

§

§

Defendants

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.
01-177 6
DIVISION" " JUDGE
SECT. F MAG 2 MAG. NO.
MAG.

COMPLAINT AND .JURY DEMAND NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and files its Complaint and Jury Demand. Plaintiff respectfully avers as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, and

• •
to provide appropriate relief to Michael Brooks, Willie Brooks, David Dunn, Shedrick Winfield, Kevin Gautier, (sometimes referred to herein as the "identified aggrieved parties") and all individuals similarly situated to them, who were adversely affected by their being denied employment in construction positions by TIC - The Industrial Company ("TTIC"), and its parent company, TIC Holdings, Inc. ("TICH") (sometimes herein referred to collectively as "TIC" or "Defendant"), because of their race (Black).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1.
Jurisdiction ofthis 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 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981a.
2. Venue is proper in this Court under Section 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(3 ).
-2 -

• •
PARTIES 3.
Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981a.
4. Made Defendants herein are TTIC and TICR, which have at all relevant times been, to the information and belief of Plaintiff, corporations organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and doing business within the State of Louisiana, and which have at all times relevant had at least fifteen (15) employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendants have been employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
-3 -

• •
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6.
Since at least April of 1994, Defendant has failed, in violation of Section 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-8(c), to make and preserve records relevant to the determination ofwhether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed.
7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the identified aggrieved parties filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by TIIC. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
8.
At all times relevant, TICR has been on notice of, and participated in the investigation of, the charges of discrimination filed by the identified aggrieved parties against TIIC.
9. Because of their race (Black), Brooks, Brooks, and Dunn, were denied employment by Defendant in Geismar, Louisiana, in or about April of 1994 in positions of construction work, including pipe welder and/or pipe fitter.
-4 -

• •
10. Because of their race (Black) Winfield and Gautier, were denied employment by Defendant in Shreveport, Louisiana, in or about February - March of 1997, in positions of construction work.
11. On a nationwide basis since at least 1994, Defendant has denied employment to Black individuals in construction positions because of their race as a consequence of Defendant's recruiting and hiring policies.
12. The unlawful practices of Defendant complained of herein have deprived the identified aggrieved parties, and all individuals similarly situated, of equal employment opportunities because of their being Black.
13. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein, which include but are not limited to a specific set of written policies, procedures, and rules dictating the manner in which individuals are to be recruited and hired, were and are intentional. In the alternative, they are the result of facially neutral policies and practices which have an unintentionally discriminatory disparate impact on Blacks as a class.
-5-

• •
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were and continue to be done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the identified aggrieved parties and all other similarly situated individuals.
15. The EEOC is entitled under Title VII, as a "complaining party," to recover punitive damages for all violations alleged herein shown to have been committed with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected right of any aggrieved person.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining TIIC and TICR, their officers,
successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from refusing to hire, and from failing to recruit individuals because they are Black, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race; B. Order TTIC and TICR to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for persons of all
-6 -

• •
races, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order TIIC and TICH to make whole the identified aggrieved individuals, and all those similarly situated, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to front payor reinstatement; D. Order TIIC and TICH to make whole the identified aggrieved individuals, and all those similarly situated, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including but not limited to relocation expenses, job search expenses, and medical expenses not covered by the Employer's employee benefit plan, in amounts to be determined in the course of the proceedings; E. Order TTIC and TICH to make whole the identified aggrieved individuals, and all those similarly situated, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of herein, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
-7 -

• •
loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined in the course of the proceedings; F. Order TTIC and TICH to pay punitive damages to the identified aggrieved individuals, and those similarly situated, and to the EEOC as a complaining party, for its malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial; G. Award the Commission its costs of this action; and H. Grant any and all other relief, legal or equitable, which the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND In accordance with Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Commission hereby requests a jury on all issues raised in the instant Complaint which may be tried by jury.
Respectfully submitted, GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Acting Deputy General Counsel No Bar Roll Number Assigned
-8-

• •
~T4~ KElT T. HILL Regional Attorney Bar Roll No. 15200000
J!iV JEfREY T. A
Supervisory Trial Attorney La. Bar Roll No. 2355

REGISTERED AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS TIC - THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 8550 UNITED PLAZA BLVD BATON ROUGE, LA 70809
TIC HOLDINGS, INC. - NO LISTING IN LOUISIANA

Senior Trial Attorney La. Bar Roll No. 20890 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New Orleans District Office 701 Loyola Avenue Suite 600 New Orleans, LA 70113 Tel: (504) 589-3844 (Hill)
(504) 589-6950 (AguIar) (504) 589-2663 (Juge) Fax: (504) 589-2805
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

-9 -

 
 U.S. E.E.O.C. v. TIC-The Indus. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)

Opinion

2002 WL 31654977 United States District Court,
E.D. Louisiana.
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v.
TIC—THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY et al.
No. Civ.A. 01–1776. | Nov. 21, 2002.

ORDER AND REASONS
WILKINSON, Magistrate J.
*1 The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought this employment discrimination action under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a against defendant, TIC—The Industrial Company (“TIC”).1 The EEOC alleges that defendant, a construction company, has engaged in a long-term pattern and practice of refusing to hire African–American job applicants on the basis of their race in the New Orleans area and nationwide. The EEOC sued on behalf of five named aggrieved parties (Michael Brooks, Willie Brooks, David Dunn, Shedrick Winfield and Kevin Gautier) and all individuals similarly situated to them. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief and punitive damages. Complaint, Record Doc. No. 1.
The EEOC filed a motion for protective order, asking that TIC be prohibited from engaging in ex parte communications with all potential claimants in this action. Record Doc. No. 91.2 Plaintiff states in its memorandum that it is trying to identify all of the potential claimants, has currently identified more than 130 and will supplement its disclosures to TIC when it learns the identities of additional potential claimants through discovery. Id ., Plaintiff’s Exh. A, list of claimants. The EEOC argues that, although it does not have an attorney-client relationship with all potential claimants, it is entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege and the American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 to prevent defendant from talking with potential claimants because the EEOC represents all claimants’ interests in this action.
Presumably the EEOC invokes Model Rule 4.2 because the EEOC brings this action on behalf of claimants nationwide. Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 is identical to the Model Rule, and this court has adopted the Louisiana Rules to govern the conduct of attorneys appearing here. Local Rule 83.2.4E. Louisiana Rule 4.2 provides:
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so. A lawyer shall not effect the prohibited communication through a third party, including the lawyer’s client.
La. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2.
Title VII grants the EEOC the authority to sue on behalf of aggrieved complainants, who are often described as a “class.” However, such an action does not arise under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and class certification of the type contemplated in Rule 23 class actions is not necessary. General Tel. Co. of the NW, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, 446 U.S. 318, 323–24 (1980) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–5(a), (f)(1), (g)).
By enacting this provision of Title VII,
Congress sought to implement the public interest as well as to bring about more effective enforcement of private rights.... The EEOC’s civil suit was intended to supplement, not replace, the private action. The EEOC was to bear the primary burden of litigation, but the private action previously available
1

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. TIC-The Indus. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)
under § 706 [42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5] was not superseded. Under § 706(f)(1) [42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1) ], the aggrieved person may bring his own action.... The aggrieved person may also intervene in the EEOC’s enforcement action. These private-action rights suggest that the EEOC is not merely a proxy for the victims of discrimination and that the EEOC’s enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23.... When the EEOC acts, albeit at the behest of and for the benefit of specific individuals, it acts also to vindicate the public interest in preventing employment discrimination.
*2 Id. at 325–26 (emphasis added).
[U]nlike the Rule 23 class representative, the EEOC is authorized to proceed in a unified action and to obtain the most satisfactory overall relief even though competing interests are involved and particular groups may appear to be disadvantaged. The individual victim is given his right to intervene for this very reason. The EEOC exists to advance the public interest in preventing and remedying employment discrimination, and it does so in part by making the hard choices where conflicts of interest exist.
Id. at 331.
Because the EEOC has not yet designated specifically for which potential claimants it will seek damages, TIC wants to interview informally the 131 identified potential claimants so that it can decide which ones to depose. The EEOC contends in its motion for protective order that the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine protect its communications with all potential claimants, and it seeks an order prohibiting TIC from communicating ex parte with any potential claimant in this action and preventing TIC from discovering the written questionnaires that the 131 identified potential claimants have provided to the EEOC. TIC responds that plaintiff has failed to meet its burden for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) and has failed to show that it is entitled to any attorney-client privilege or work product protection because it admittedly does not have a traditional attorney-client relationship with potential claimants.
First, the court notes that class action cases arising under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, cases that do not involve the EEOC as a plaintiff and cases in which the EEOC sues under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), which have been cited by both parties, are not dispositive in deciding the issues presented in this Title VII enforcement action. The strictures of Rule 23 do not apply in the instant action and many of the concerns expressed by the courts in those cases are not of concern here. Similarly, cases in which the EEOC is not a plaintiff do not address the situation here, in which the EEOC asserts an attorney-client privilege despite its admitted lack of an attorney-client relationship with all potential claimants. In addition, ADEA enforcement actions differ significantly from Title VII actions. In Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Nebco Evans Distrib., No. 8:CV96–00644, 1997 WL 416423 (D. Neb. June 9, 1997), a case cited by plaintiff, the court held that the EEOC could invoke the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the ADEA class. This case is not on point for reasons explained by the Nebco Evans court itself.
Unlike the Title VII enforcement provisions, under the ADEA, the right of an individual to bring a private action “shall terminate upon the commencement of an action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the right of such employee under this chapter.” Further, “while Title VII explicitly provides for intervention by both the EEOC and the aggrieved party, the ADEA makes no mention of intervention whatsoever.”
*3 Id. at *4 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 626(c)(1); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 584–85 (1978); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Wackenhut Corp., 939 F.2d 241, 242 (5th Cir.1991)) (quoting Wackenhut Corp., 939 F.Supp. at 244). Thus, “ ‘the conclusion that the EEOC is the individual’s representative in ADEA suits ... seems inescapable.’ The Court also agrees that ‘[w]hile there does not appear to be any formal attorney-client relationship, the EEOC, through its attorneys, [is] essentially acting as de facto counsel for the [individuals].” ’ Id. (quoting Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 921 F.2d 489, 495 (3d Cir.1990); Bauman v. Jacobs Suchard, Inc., 136 F.R .D. 460, 461 (N.D.Ill.1990)). That conclusion is not “inescapable” in Title VII enforcement actions.
Second, the burden of showing good cause for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), see In re Terra Int’l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir.1998), is satisfied in this case if the EEOC is entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege. That privilege, if applicable, provides good cause for a protective order without any other showing, although its presence does not necessarily mandate the blanket prohibitions that plaintiff seeks.
Third, the EEOC’s entitlement, if any, to the protection of the work product doctrine and TIC’s ability to obtain the EEOC’s work product documents depend on the application of Rule 26(b)(3). Thus, the EEOC must show that the documents it seeks
2

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. TIC-The Indus. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)
to protect were “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). If the EEOC makes that showing, TIC must show that it “has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of [its] case and that [it] is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” Id.
As to the attorney-client privilege issue, the EEOC admits that it does not have an attorney-client relationship with all potential claimants, but asserts that it is nonetheless entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege on behalf of those claimants because of the representative nature of this Title VII action. However, the case law is not as clear as the EEOC contends.
The district court for the Southern District of New York recently summarized the state of the law in this area.
The case law is not definitive regarding the moment when the EEOC enters into an attorney-client relationship with the members of the class it seeks to represent. Moreover, the cases provide little guidance on the precise nature of the relationship between the EEOC and the members of the class it seeks to represent. On the one hand, the EEOC represents the interests of all members of the defined class when it acts to “vindicate the public interest in preventing employment discrimination.” On the other hand, the EEOC’s lawsuit does not preclude a separate action by members of the class. An aggrieved party may bring a separate, private action or intervene in the EEOC’s enforcement action. Even where the EEOC represents a class to which an individual employee belongs, there are differences between the public interest protected by the EEOC and the private interest of the employee. It would therefore be inconsistent with the remedial purposes of Title VII to bind class members by the EEOC’s action, and problematic to define the nature of the relationship between the EEOC and the general class members.
*4 Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 206 F.Supp.2d 559, 561 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (quoting General Tel. Co., 446 U.S. at 326, 333) (citing Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Johnson & Higgins, Inc., 1998 WL 778369, at *5–6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1998); Bauman, 136 F.R.D. at 462; Gormin v. Brown–Forman Corp., 133 F.R.D. 50, 53 (M.D.Fla.1990); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Chemtech Int’l Corp., No. H–94–2848, 1995 WL 608333, at *1 (S.D.Tex. May 17, 1995)).
Despite the “problematic” nature of the relationship between the EEOC and the claimants it represents, some courts have recognized the existence of an attorney-client privilege between the EEOC and the class members in a Title VII enforcement action. Id. at 561; Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. International Profit Assocs., Inc., 206 F.R.D. 215, 218–19 (N.D.Ill.2002); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of America, Inc., 960 F.Supp. 164, 167–68 (C.D.Ill.1997) (without expressly finding an attorney-client relationship between the EEOC and potential claimants, the court held that the EEOC has a “legitimate interest in communicating legal advice and information to those persons it will potentially represent in this action;” the court memorialized defendant’s voluntary agreement to contact past or current employees regarding past incidents of discrimination only by deposition).
A few courts have rejected the assertion of attorney-client privilege when the EEOC has proffered no evidence that the potential claimants have contacted the EEOC or want the EEOC to represent them. In Gormin, the EEOC brought an enforcement action under the ADEA. Without discussing the nature of an ADEA action, the court denied the EEOC’s motion for protective order seeking to prevent defendant from contacting class members. The court found no evidence that any aggrieved individual had either initiated contact with the EEOC by filing a charge or expressly asserted a desire to have the EEOC represent him or her. If the EEOC could present such evidence, the court might conclude that an attorney-client relationship existed. Gormin, 133 F.R.D. at 52, 53.
Similarly, in Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 948 F.Supp. 54 (E.D.Mo.1996), another ADEA case3 in which the court did not discuss the distinction between the ADEA and Title VII, the court denied the EEOC’s motion for a protective order. The court found that, because the EEOC is acting on its own authority to vindicate the public interest, it “does not sue in a representative capacity.” Id. at 55 (citing General Tel. Co., 446 U.S. at 327–29). Because a group of former employees had never filed a discrimination charge or otherwise sought the EEOC’s representation, the court held that the EEOC could not invoke Rule 4.2 of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct to prevent defendant from communicating with those employees. Id.
*5 By comparison, the court found in EEOC v. International Profit Assocs. that the EEOC could invoke the attorney-client privilege because each class member had affirmatively stated in interviews with EEOC attorneys that she wanted the EEOC to represent her in the sex discrimination lawsuit. EEOC v. International Profit Assocs., 206 F.R.D. at 218–19. The International Profit Assocs. court also cited an unreported decision of the district court in EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg.,
3

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. TIC-The Indus. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)
which held that the attorney-client privilege applied in that case because the identified claimants “ ‘at some point identified themselves to the EEOC as persons seeking representation in the lawsuit.” ’ Id. at 219; see also EEOC v. Johnson & Higgins, 1998 WL 778369, at *5–6 (affidavits of claimants established date that they first believed EEOC represented them; attorney-client privilege applied only after that date); EEOC v. Chemtech, 1995 WL 608333, at *1–2 (attorney-client privilege applied in EEOC action brought on behalf of single claimant, who intervened in action and provided affidavit stating his belief that the EEOC’s attorneys represented him and that his communications with the EEOC’s attorneys were confidential; court also recognized “joint prosecution privilege that extends to communications between a party and the attorney for a co-litigant”); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. HBE Corp., No. 4:93–CV–722, 1994 WL 376273, at *2 (E.D.Mo. May 19, 1994) (attorney-client privilege applied in EEOC action brought on behalf of single claimant, who intervened in action and provided affidavit stating that he had sought legal advice from EEOC’s attorney with understanding that their communications were confidential); Bauman, 136 F.R.D. at 463 (former employees filed class action under ADEA; EEOC intervened; attorney-client privilege applied because the “primary purpose of the letter [that the EEOC sent to potential claimants] was to ask if the claimants wished to be represented by the EEOC. Only those who desired to be represented were asked to complete the questionnaire.”).
Courts that have found the EEOC able to invoke the attorney-client privilege and/or Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 have imposed restrictions, but not necessarily blanket restrictions, on the defendant’s ability to communicate with potential claimants. Thus, in Morgan Stanley, the court “found that all women defined in the class are to some degree represented by the EEOC,” EEOC v. Morgan Stanley, 206 F.Supp.2d at 561, and placed some limitations on the defendant’s permissible communications with class members to protect the claimants “from the potential influences inherent in their employment status.” Id. at 562.
“[A]n order limiting communications between parties and potential class members should be based on a clear record and specific findings that reflect a weighing of the need for a limitation and the potential interference with the rights of the parties.... [S]uch a weighing—identifying the potential abuses being addressed—should result in a carefully drawn order that limits speech as little as possible, consistent with the rights of the parties under the circumstances.” Coercion of potential class members by the class opponent may exist if both parties are “involved in an ongoing business relationship.” Courts have found the danger of such coercion between employers and employees sufficient to warrant the imposition of restrictions regarding communication between defendants and potential class members.
*6 Id. (quoting Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 101–02 (1981); Ralph Oldsmobile, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 2001 WL 1035132, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2001)) (citing Bublitz v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 196 F.R.D. 545, 547 (S.D.Iowa 2000); Abdallah v. Coca–Cola Co., 186 F.R.D. 672, 678–79 (N.D.Ga.1999); EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg., 960 F.Supp. at 168) (emphasis added).
In the instant case, the EEOC has not provided any evidence that any potential claimant has consented to be represented by the EEOC or considers the EEOC’s attorneys to be his attorneys. On this record and based on the well-reasoned case law, the court cannot find that the EEOC is entitled to the benefits of the attorney-client privilege or to invoke Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, except as to the five named charging parties.
Moreover, the EEOC is suing on behalf of job applicants who were denied employment with TIC. TIC states at one point in its memorandum that “the large majority of [the 131 identified potential claimants] are not TIC employees,” Record Doc. No. 95, defendant’s memorandum at p.4 (emphasis added), and at another point that none of the potential claimants are TIC employees. Id. at p.6. The EEOC has failed to identify any particular danger or abuse that might arise from TIC’s proposed contacts with non-employees. In Abdallah v. Coca–Cola Co., 186 F.R.D. 672 (N.D.Ga.1999), a race discrimination class action brought by current employees under Rule 23 and a case cited by the EEOC, the court found “an inherent danger” that internal communications from defendant to its employees about the lawsuit or direct contacts with employees about the lawsuit “could deter potential class members from participating in the suit out of concern for the effect it could have on their jobs.” Id. at 678–79.
Non-employees are not subject to this inherent danger or concern for their jobs. In EEOC v. Morgan Stanley, 206 F.Supp.2d at 563, the court allowed defendant to contact its own employees who had not affirmatively agreed to join the EEOC’s lawsuit, subject to some informational restrictions on the contacts because of the inherent possibility of coercive communication with current employees. In Lowery v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 158 F.3d 742 (4th Cir.1998), the Fourth Circuit upheld a protective order in a Rule 23 class action brought by African–American current and former employees, which prohibited defendant from engaging in ex parte communications about the lawsuit with its current employees only. Id. at 764.
4

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. TIC-The Indus. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)
Accordingly, I find that the EEOC has not carried its burden to show that it is entitled to invoke the attorney-client privilege or Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 to prevent defendant from contacting potential claimants other than the five named charging parties, who apparently filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC. However, the court instructs defendant that, in its contacts with potential claimants, it must inform the claimants that the EEOC has brought this action; summarize the claims in the action; advise the claimants that they may, but are not required to, join in the action; and tell them that they may contact the EEOC for additional information. TIC may discuss with potential claimants only the facts of the case and must not in any way attempt to influence them about joining this action or bringing a separate action. If any of the potential claimants is a current employee of TIC, TIC must in addition advise the employee that it is unlawful for TIC to retaliate against him for participating in the lawsuit.
*7 Finally, for essentially the same reasons, the EEOC has not carried its burden under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3) to show that the questionnaires returned to it by the 131 listed, potential claimants were prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for a party or a party’s representative, except as to the five named charging parties. TIC has attached a blank questionnaire form to its opposition memorandum. Defendant’s Exh. B. The questionnaire does not ask the respondents to indicate in any way whether they wish to be represented by the EEOC in this action. The form’s stated purpose is to determine “your legitimacy” as a potential claimant, id. at p.1, and the 19 numbered questions address personal information and the facts upon which a claim might be based. At the end of the questionnaire, the EEOC asks the respondents to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether they want to receive payment from a settlement fund, if one is awarded. Id. at p.5. Although this question might obliquely indicate a claimant’s desire to have the EEOC represent him, the EEOC has not provided the court with any evidence that any potential claimants have responded “yes” to that question.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for protective order is DENIED IN SUBSTANTIAL PART, subject to the conditions contained herein, AND GRANTED IN LIMITED PART, only to the extent that communications between the EEOC and the five named charging parties are protected by the attorney-client privilege and that defendant may not contact these five persons ex parte.

Parallel Citations

90 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 737

Footnotes

1

TIC’s co-defendant, TIC Holdings, Inc., was recently dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties. Record Doc. No. 100.

2

In future memoranda, the EEOC must either use Westlaw or LEXIS citations for unpublished opinions or attach copies of the cases

it cites if they appear only in looseleaf services. Local Rule 7.4.

3

The cited opinion does not state what type of discrimination or what statute is involved. However, the court stated in Equal

Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 960 F.Supp. 203, 203 (E.D.Mo.1996), another opinion rendered

in the same case, that it arose under the ADEA.

5

 
 LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 1 of 14

2000E, CLOSED, MAG-2, PROTO
U. S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:01-cv-01776-LMA

EEOC v. TIC The Indus Co, et al Assigned to: Judge Lance M Africk Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 06/11/2001 Date Terminated: 12/30/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Gregory T. Juge Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1555 Poydras Street Suite 1900 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-595-2877 Email: gregory.juge@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erania Ebron Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New Orleans District Office 701 Loyola Ave. Suite 600 New Orleans, LA 70113 (504) 589-6817 Email: erania.ebron@eeoc.gov

Jeffery D. Morgan U. S. Customs Service 423 Canal St. Room 216 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 589-6981 TERMINATED: 09/05/2002

Jeffrey Tobias Agular Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New Orleans District Office 701 Loyola Ave. Suite 600 New Orleans, LA 70113

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 2 of 14

V. Defendant TIC - The Industrial Company

(504) 589-6817
Keith T. Hill Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New Orleans District Office 701 Loyola Ave. Suite 600 New Orleans, LA 70113 (504) 589-6817
represented by George Phillip Shuler, III Chaffe McCall, LLP (New Orleans) Energy Centre 1100 Poydras St. Suite 2300 New Orleans, LA 70163-2300 504-585-7000 Email: shuler@chaffe.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allan G. King Littler Mendelson 2001 Ross Ave. Suite 2600 Dallas, TX 75201-2931 214-880-8100 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Durel Livaudais Chaffe McCall, LLP (New Orleans) Energy Centre 1100 Poydras St. Suite 2300 New Orleans, LA 70163-2300 504-585-7000 Email: livaudais@chaffe.com
Lawrence W. Marquess Littler Mendelson, PC (Denver) 1200 17th Street Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80202-5835 303-629-6200 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 3 of 14

Defendant
TIC Holdings Inc TERMINATED: 11/12/2002

Michael D. Spencer Chaffe McCall, LLP (New Orleans) Energy Centre 1100 Poydras St. Suite 2300 New Orleans, LA 70163-2300 504-585-7000 Email: spencer@chaffe.com
represented by George Phillip Shuler, III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allan G. King (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Durel Livaudais (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2002
Lawrence W. Marquess (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Spencer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2002

Date Filed 06/11/2001 06/11/2001 08/14/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001 08/29/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; 2 summons(es) issued (cca) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

Automatic Referral (Utility Event) to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (cca) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

2 NOTICE/ORDER that case is set before Judge for call docket at 10:00 9/12/01 by Clerk (swh) (Entered: 08/14/2001)

3 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons and complaint sent to defendant TIC The Indus Co on 8/15/01 (nn) (Entered: 08/21/2001)

4 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons and complaint sent to defendant TIC Holdings Inc on 8/15/01 (nn) (Entered: 08/21/2001)

5 Motion by plaintiff EEOC and ORDER for appearance of Jeffery D.

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 4 of 14

09/13/2001 09/20/2001 09/20/2001 10/09/2001 10/12/2001 10/12/2001
10/19/2001 10/22/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 11/01/2001
11/06/2001

Morgan as addl counsel of rec for same by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. Date Signed: 8/29/01 (nn) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
6 MINUTE ENTRY ( 9/12/01 ) ; Call Docket held 10:00 9/12/01 pass for 30 days; by Judge Martin L. Feldman (swh) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons and complaint sent to defendant TIC Holdings Inc on 8/15/01 (nn) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons and complaint sent to defendant TIC The Indus Co on 8/15/01 (nn) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
9 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co, defendant TIC Holdings Inc and ORDER extending time until 11/5/01 to answer complaint by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 10/11/01 (nn) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
10 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co, defendant TIC Holdings Inc and ORDER for attorney Allan G. King to appear pro hac vice by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 10/15/01 (gw) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
11 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co, defendant TIC Holdings Inc and ORDER for attorney Lawrence W. Marquess to appear pro hac vice by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 10/16/01 (gw) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
12 MINUTE ENTRY ( 10/18/01 ) Preliminary Conference is set 2:30 10/30/01 before the mag by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (nn) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
13 MINUTE ENTRY ( 10/22/01 ) Preliminary Conference is RESET 2:30 11/7/01 before the mag by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (nn) (Entered: 10/23/2001)
14 MOTION by defendant TIC Holdings Inc to dismiss pla's cmp for lack of personal jurisdiction to be heard before Judge at 10:00 11/28/01 (gw) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
15 MOTION by defendant TIC The Indus Co to transfer venue to USDC of Colorado to be heard before Judge at 10:00 11/28/01(gw) Modified on 12/20/2001 (Entered: 11/01/2001)
16 ANSWER by defendant TIC The Indus Co to complaint by plaintiff EEOC [1-1] (bc) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
17 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co, defendant TIC Holdings Inc to continue or stay preliminary conference and ORDER denying same; the preliminary conference will be conducted as scheduled because the court must determine whether all parties consent to proceed before a magistrate judge so that the pending motions may be assigned to the appropriate docket by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. Date Signed: 11/2/01 (dw) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
18 MINUTE ENTRY ( 11/5/01 ) Preliminary Conference set for 2:30 11/7/01 is CANCELLED by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr.

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 5 of 14

11/09/2001
11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/16/2001 11/28/2001 12/20/2001 12/31/2001 12/31/2001 12/31/2001 01/03/2002
01/03/2002 01/04/2002

(dw) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
21 Motion by plaintiff EEOC and ORDER re-setting hrg on dft TIC -The Industrial Co's motion to transfer venue [15-1] & dft TIC Holdings' motion to dismiss pla's cmp for lack of personal jurisdiction [14-1] at 10:00 1/9/02, without oral argument by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 11/13/01 (nn) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
19 Statement of Corporate Disclosure filed by defendant TIC The Indus Co (bc) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
20 Statement of Corporate Disclosure filed by defendant TIC Holdings Inc (bc) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
22 NOTICE/ORDER that a preliminary conference is scheduled in chambers before courtroom deputy at 2:45 12/11/01 by Clerk (swh) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
23 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co, defendant TIC Holdings Inc and ORDER that the preliminary conference set for 12/11/01 at 2:45 is stayed to be reset by the Court by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 11/30/01 (dw) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
24 NOTICE/ORDER that a preliminary conference is scheduled in chambers before courtroom deputy at 3:30 1/15/02 by Clerk (swh) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
25 ALTERNATIVE MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for stay of dft TIC Holding Inc's motion to dismiss under Rule 56(f) of the FRCP to be heard before Judge at 10:00 1/23/02 (dw) (Entered: 12/31/2001)
26 Memo in opposition by plaintiff EEOC to motion to transfer venue to USDC of Colorado [15-1] filed by defendant TIC The Indus Co (dw) (Entered: 12/31/2001)
28 Motion by plaintiff EEOC and ORDER granting leave to file into the rec its 31 page memo in opp to dfts' mtn to dismiss case for lack of personal juris by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 1/3/02 (nn) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
27 MINUTE ENTRY ( 1/3/02 ) Dft's motion to dismiss pla's cmp for lack of personal jurisdiction [14-1], & dft's motion to transfer venue to USDC of Colorado [15-1] are cont until 1/23/02 to be heard w/pla's motion for stay; both motions will be resolved on the briefs by Judge Martin L. Feldman (ijg) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
29 Memo in opposition by plaintiff EEOC to motion to dismiss pla's cmp for lack of personal jurisdiction [14-1] filed by defendant TIC The Indus Co, defendant TIC Holdings Inc (nn) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
30 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co, defendant TIC Holdings Inc and ORDER that the Preliminary Conference set 1/15/02 is stayed until such times as this Court deems appropriate by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 1/8/02 (nn) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 6 of 14

01/04/2002
02/11/2002 02/15/2002 02/15/2002 02/15/2002 02/15/2002 02/19/2002 02/20/2002 02/20/2002 02/21/2002 02/25/2002

31 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co, defendant TIC Holdings Inc and ORDER that the hrgs now set for 1/23/02 on pla EEOC's motion for stay of dft TIC Holding Inc's motion to dismiss under Rule 56(f) of the FRCP [25-1], the motion by dft TIC The Indus Co to transfer venue to USDC of Colorado [15-1] & the motion by dft TIC Holdings Inc to dismiss pla's cmp for lack of personal jurisdiction [14-1] are all cont to 2/20/02 on the briefs by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 1/8/02 (gw) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
32 Memo in opposition by defendant TIC Holdings Inc to motion for stay of dft TIC Holding Inc's motion to dismiss under Rule 56(f) of the FRCP [25-1] filed by plaintiff EEOC (dw) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
33 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co and ORDER that same is granted leave to file its reply to pla's memorandum in opposition to its mtn to transfer venue by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 2/19/02 (dw) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
34 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co and ORDER that same is granted leave to file its memorandum exceeding page limitation by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 2/19/02 (dw) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
36 Motion by defendant TIC Holdings Inc and ORDER that same is granted leave to file its reply brief in support of its mtn to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 2/20/02 (dw) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
37 Motion by defendant TIC Holdings Inc and ORDER that same is granted leave to file its memorandum exceeding page limitation by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 2/19/02 (dw) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
35 Reply by defendant TIC The Indus Co to pla's opposition to its motion to transfer venue to USDC of Colorado [15-1] (dw) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
40 Motion by plaintiff EEOC granting leave to file supplemental memo in response to dft TICH's reply brief in support of its mtn to dismiss and ORDER denying same as moot by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 2/25/02 (nn) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
41 Motion by plaintiff EEOC for leave to file a supplemental memo in response to TIC-The Industrial Co's reply brief in support of its mtn to transfer venue and ORDER denying same as moot by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 2/25/02 (nn) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
38 Reply by defendant TIC Holdings Inc in support of its motion to dismiss pla's cmp for lack of personal jurisdiction [14-1] (dw) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
39 MINUTE ENTRY ( 2/22/02 ) granting pla's motion for stay of dft TIC Holding Inc's motion to dismiss under Rule 56(f) of the FRCP [25-1], denying w/out prej dft TIC The Industrial Co's motion to transfer venue to USDC of Colorado [15-1] & denying w/out prej dft TIC Holdings' motion to dismiss pla's cmp for lack of personal jurisdiction [14-1] by

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 7 of 14

03/19/2002 03/20/2002 04/05/2002
04/08/2002 04/11/2002
04/17/2002 04/22/2002 04/22/2002 04/23/2002 04/23/2002 05/01/2002

Judge Martin L. Feldman (nn) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
47 Motion by plaintiff EEOC for preliminary conference before District Judge and ORDER DENYING SAME by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 4/18/02 (dw) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
42 Memorandum by defendant TIC The Indus Co in opposition to plaintiffs ex parte mtn for preliminary conf before the district judge (nn) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
44 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co for an expedited hearing on its mtn to limit pla EEOC's communications w/non-party potential class memebers and ORDER DENYING SAME; by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 4/10/02 (vld) Modified on 04/10/2002 (Entered: 04/10/2002)
43 Memorandum by plaintiff EEOC in opposition to deft's mtn for expedited hrg on mtn to limit pltf's communications with potential class members (swh) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
45 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co for leave to file its reply to pla's memo in opp to dft's mtn for expedited hrg of mtn to limit pla's communications with potential class members and ORDER denying same by Judge Martin L. Feldman Date Signed: 4/15/02 (nn) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
46 MINUTE ENTRY ( 4/17/02 ) Case reassigned to Judge Jay C. Zainey to replace the case of CA 00-2978 that was transferred back to Section F by Judge Martin L. Feldman (nn) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
48 MINUTE ENTRY ( 4/22/02 ) pursuant to the 4/18/02 directive issued by Chief Judge Berrigan; ORDERED that this civil action is TRANSFERRED to Section I, Judge Lance M. Africk by Judge Jay C. Zainey (dw) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
49 MINUTE ENTRY ( 4/22/02 ) ORDERED that the automatic referral of this matter to the Magistrate Judge is VACATED by Judge Jay C. Zainey (dw) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
50 MINUTE ENTRY ( 4/22/02 ) It is ORDERED that TIC's mtn to limit communications w/non-party class members shall be docketed & set for hrg on the briefs for 5/15/02 9:00; memo in opp to be filed in accordance w/Local Rule 7.5E by Judge Jay C. Zainey (cca) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
51 MOTION by defendant TIC The Indus Co to limit pla EEOC's communications w/non-party potential class members to be heard before Judge at 9:00 5/15/02 (cca) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
54 Motion by dft TIC Holdings Inc for exp hrg & ORDER that a hrg on its motion for addl time within which to answer or object to the EEOC's first set of written disc requests re the issue of personal jurisdiction [53-1] will be held on the record w/o oral argument; written opp due 5/7/02 by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. Date Signed: 5/3/02 (ijg) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 8 of 14

05/03/2002
05/06/2002 05/07/2002 05/07/2002 05/08/2002 05/09/2002 05/10/2002
05/10/2002 05/13/2002 05/14/2002

52 MINUTE ENTRY (5/2/02) ORDERED that any oral argument previously granted in these civil actions newly allotted to Section "I" is CANCELED; the Court will reschedule any oral argument it deems necessary; to req oral argument counsel to submit a req for oral argument as stated herein by Judge Marcel Livaudais for Judge Lance M. Africk (pck) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
53 MOTION by dft TIC Holdings Inc for addl time within which to answer or object to the EEOC's first set of written disc requests re the issue of personal jurisdiction to be heard bfr Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. on the record w/o oral argument (ijg) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
55 Memo in opposition by plaintiff EEOC to motion for addl time within which to answer or object to the EEOC's first set of written disc requests re the issue of personal jurisdiction [53-1] filed by defendant TIC Holdings Inc (ijg) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
56 Memo in opposition by plaintiff EEOC to motion for expedited hearing of motion to limit pla EEOC's communications w/non-party potential class members [51-1] filed by defendant TIC The Indus Co (ijg) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
57 Motion by defendant TIC Holdings Inc and ORDER for leave to file reply in support of its motion for addl time within which to respond to discovery by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 5/9/02 (ijg) (Entered: 05/10/2002)
58 Reply by defendant TIC Holdings Inc in support of its motion for addl time within which to answer or object to the first set of written disc requests re the issue of personal jurisdiction [53-1] (ijg) Modified on 05/15/2002 (Entered: 05/10/2002)
59 MINUTE ENTRY ( 5/8/02 ) ORDERED that dft TIC Holdings Inc's motion for addl time within which to answer or object to the EEOC's first set of written disc requests re the issue of personal jurisdiction [53-1] is GRANTED; the deadline by which dft must respond to pla's 1st set of written disc requests pertaining to the issue of personal juris is ext to 5/31/02 by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (ijg) (Entered: 05/10/2002)
60 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co and ORDER for leave to file reply to pla's memo in opp to dft's motion to limit EEOC's communications with potential class members by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 5/13/02 (ijg) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
61 Reply brief by defendant TIC The Indus Co in support of its motion to limit pla EEOC's communications w/non-party potential class members [51-1] (ijg) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
62 Motion by plaintiff EEOC and ORDER for leave to file suppl memo in resp to dft's reply in support of its motion to limit pla's communications w/potential claimants by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 5/15/02

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 9 of 14

05/16/2002 05/22/2002 06/04/2002 06/19/2002 06/20/2002 07/03/2002
07/03/2002 07/30/2002
08/06/2002 08/06/2002
08/07/2002 08/15/2002

(ijg) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
63 Suppl Memorandum by plaintiff EEOC in response to dft TIC The Indus Co's reply in support of its motion to limit pla EEOC's communications w/non-party potential class members [51-1] (ijg) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
64 Motion by dft TIC The Indus Co & ORDER extending time to answer, object, and/or otherwise respond to pla's 1st set of written disc requests re issue of personal jurisdiction by Judge Marcel Livaudais for Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 5/23/02 (ijg) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
65 MINUTE ENTRY ( 6/3/02 ) Status Conf is scheduled for 3:30 6/27/02 bfr the undersigned ; any oral argument previously granted on any mtn set bfr the US District Judge is canceled. by Judge Lance M. Africk (tbl) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
66 Written status report by plaintiff EEOC (ijg) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
67 Written status report by defendant TIC The Indus Co, defendant TIC Holdings Inc (gw) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
68 MINUTE ENTRY (7/2/02) Status Conf held 6/27/02; dfts shall file any renewed mtn to dism by 9/30/02; dft's mtn to limit pla EEOC's communications w/non-party potential class members [51-1] is DENIED W/O PREJ; Pre-Trial Conference set 9:00 5/5/03, & jury trial set 8:30 6/2/03 by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 7/2/02 (ijg) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
69 MINUTE ENTRY (7/3/02): Preliminary Conference held; amendments due 8/1/02; pretrial conf set 9:00 5/5/03; jury trial set 8:30 6/2/03 by Judge Lance M. Africk (ijg) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
71 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co for expedited hearing and for oral argument on its renewed motion to limit plaintiff EEOC's communications with non-party potential class members and UNSIGNED ORDER; see Minute Entry dated August 5, 2002 (ijg) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
70 RENEWED MOTION by defendant TIC The Indus Co to limit plaintiff EEOC's communications with non-party potential class members to be heard before Judge at 2:30 8/23/02 (ijg) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
72 MINUTE ENTRY (8/5/02) ORDERED that the motion of defendant TIC The Industrial Company for expedited hearing and for oral argument is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that hearing on defendant's motion to limit plaintiff EEOC's communications with non-party potential class members [70-1] is set for 2:30 8/23/02 by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 8/5/02 (ijg) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
73 Memo in opposition by plaintiff EEOC to renewed motion to limit plaintiff EEOC's communications with non-party potential class members [70-1] filed by defendant TIC The Indus Co (ijg) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
74 MINUTE ENTRY ( 8/14/02 ) ORDERED that the hearing on defendant

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 10 of 14

08/20/2002 08/21/2002 08/23/2002 09/05/2002 09/27/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/15/2002 10/15/2002 10/16/2002

TIC The Indus Co's motion to limit plaintiff EEOC's communications with non-party potential class members [70-1] has been RESET at 2:00 8/22/02 by Judge Lance M. Africk (ijg) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
75 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co and ORDER for leave to file reply to plaintiff's memmo in opp to defendant's motion to limit EEOC's Communications with Potential Class Members by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 8/21/02 (ijg) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
76 Reply by defendant TIC The Indus Co to plaintiff's response to its motion to limit plaintiff EEOC's communications with non-party potential class members [70-1] (ijg) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
77 MINUTE ENTRY ( 8/22/02 ) ORDERED that the motion to limit plaintiff EEOC's communications with non-party potential class members [70-1] by defendant TIC The Indus Co is DISMISSED AS MOOT by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 8/22/02 (ijg) (Entered: 08/23/2002)
78 Motion by plaintiff EEOC and ORDER withdrawing attorney Jeffery D. Morgan by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 9/6/02 (ijg) (Entered: 09/06/2002)
79 Renewed MOTION by defendant TIC Holdings Inc to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction to be heard before Judge at 9:00 10/30/02 (ijg) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
80 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to permit off-site copying to be heard before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr.; no hearing date set (ijg) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
81 Motion by plaintiff EEOC for exp hrg & ORDER GRANTING SAME; plaintiff's motion to permit off-site copying will be heard on briefs w/o oral argument; opp due 10/11/02 by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. Date Signed: 10/7/02 (ijg) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
82 Motion by plaintiff EEOC and ORDER expediting pla's mtn to cont trial and attendant deadlines to 10/23/02 on the briefs w/o oral argument; dfts have until 10/15/02 to file opp by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 10/9/02 (dg) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
83 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to continue trial and attendant deadlines to be heard before Judge at 10/23/02 on the briefs (dg) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
84 Memo in opposition by defendant TIC The Indus Co to motion to permit off-site copying [80-1] filed by plaintiff EEOC (gw) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
85 Memo in opposition by defendant TIC The Indus Co to motion to continue trial and attendant deadlines [83-1] filed by plaintiff EEOC (gw) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
86 MINUTE ENTRY ( 10/16/02 ) Hrg on pla's motion to permit off-site copying [80-1]; ORDERED granted in part & denied in part as stated

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 11 of 14

10/18/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002 10/24/2002 10/28/2002 10/28/2002 10/31/2002 10/31/2002
11/05/2002 11/05/2002 11/06/2002 11/06/2002

herein by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (gw) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
87 Motion by plaintiff EEOC and ORDER for leave to file a suppl memo in support of its mtn to cont trial & attendant deadlines by Judge Lance M. Africk (gw) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
88 Suppl memorandum by plaintiff EEOC in support of [83-1] its motion to continue trial and attendant deadlines (gw) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
89 MINUTE ENTRY ( 10/21/02 ) ORDERED that pla's motion to continue trial and attendant deadlines [83-1] is denied by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 10/21/02 (gw) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
90 Unopposed motion by dft TIC The Indus Co and ORDER to enter confidentiality protective order & ORDER GRANTING SAME by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. Date Signed: 10/25/02 (ijg) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
91 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for protective order to prevent defendants from engaging in ex parte communications with potential claimants to be heard before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. at 11:00 11/13/02 (ijg) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
93 MOTION by dft TIC The Indus Co for expedited hearing on its motion for reconsideration & UNSIGNED ORDER; see M.E. dated 10/30/02 (ijg) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
92 MOTION by defendant TIC The Indus Co for reconsideration of Mag Judge's Order of 10/16/02 to be heard before Judge at 9:00 11/13/02 (ijg) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
94 MINUTE ENTRY ( 10/30/02 ) ORDERED that dft's motion for expedited hearing on its motion for reconsideration [93-1] is GRANTED; hearing on dft's motion is set at 9:00 11/13/02 w/o oral argument; FURTHER ORDERED that pla's opp due 11/6/02 by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 10/30/02 (ijg) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
95 Memo in opposition by defendant TIC The Indus Co to motion for protective order to prevent defendants from engaging in ex parte communications with potential claimants [91-1] filed by plaintiff EEOC (ijg) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
96 MOTION by defendant TIC The Indus Co for protective order to prevent the deposition of Ronald W McKenzie to be heard before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. at 11:00 11/20/02 (ijg) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
97 Memo in opposition by plaintiff EEOC to objections to Mag Judge's Order on EEOC's motion for off-site copying [92-1] filed by defendant TIC The Indus Co (ijg) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
98 Motion by plaintiff EEOC and ORDER for appearance of Erania Ebron as addl counsel of record by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 11/8/02

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 12 of 14

11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/13/2002 11/14/2002 11/19/2002 11/20/2002 11/21/2002 11/21/2002 11/22/2002 11/22/2002

(ijg) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
99 Memo in opposition by plaintiff EEOC to motion for protective order to prevent the deposition of Ronald W McKenzie [96-1] filed by defendant TIC The Indus Co (ijg) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
100 Stipulated motion by plaintiff EEOC & ORDER that all claims agst TIC Holdings Inc are dismissed w/prej, each pty to bear its own costs and atty fees; dft's motion to dismiss is denied w/o prej by Judge Lance M. Africk (ijg) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
103 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co for leave to file its reply in support of its objs to the Mag Judge's order on EEOC's mtn for off-site copying and ORDER DENIED; this mtn has already been ruled upon by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 11/14/02 (bc) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
101 MINUTE ENTRY ( 11/11/02 ) ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of Mag Judge's Order of 10/16/02 [92-1] filed by defendant TIC The Indus Co is DENIED by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 11/11/02 (ijg) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
102 ORDERED that a settlement conference is scheduled before magistrate at 2:00 12/4/02 ; settlement letters due by 12/3/02 by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (ijg) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
106 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co and ORDER for leave to file its reply to EEOC's opp to TIC's mtn for proto re the depo of Ron McKenzie by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. Date Signed: 11/20/02 (car) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
104 MINUTE ENTRY ( 11/20/02 ) ORDERED that the motion for protective order to prevent the deposition of Ronald W McKenzie [96-1] filed by TIC The Indus Co is DENIED by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (ijg) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
105 ORDER & REASONS that pla's motion for protective order to prevent dfts from engaging in ex parte communications with potential claimants [91-1] is DENIED IN PART & GRANTED IN PART as set forth in doc by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (ijg) (Entered: 11/21/2002)
107 Reply by defendant TIC The Indus Co to EEOC's opp to TIC's [96-1] motion for protective order to prevent the deposition of Ronald W McKenzie (car) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
108 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to compel and extend discovery deadlines to be heard bfr Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. at 11:00 12/11/02 (ijg) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
109 Motion by pla EEOC for exp hrg on its motion to compel and extend discovery deadlines [108-1] & ORDER denying same; the motion will be heard on 12/11/02; dft has until 12/3/02 to file any opp to the moiton by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. Date Signed: 11/25/02 (ijg) (Entered: 11/26/2002)

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 13 of 14

12/02/2002 12/03/2002 12/04/2002 12/06/2002
12/19/2002
12/19/2002 12/30/2002 02/28/2003 03/03/2003 03/14/2003
03/24/2003 04/02/2003

110 MOTION by defendant TIC The Indus Co objecting to Mag Judge's order on dft's motion for protective order to prevent the depo of Ronald W McKenzie to be heard before Judge at 9:00 1/8/03 (ijg) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
111 Memo in opposition by defendant TIC The Indus Co to motion to compel and extend discovery deadlines [108-1] filed by plaintiff EEOC (bc) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
112 MOTION by defendant TIC The Indus Co to strike EEOC's first mtn to compel and to extend discovery deadlines ; referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr.; to be heard before Mag Judge at 11:00 1/8/03 (vld) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
113 MINUTE ENTRY ( 12/5/02 ) (2) in person Settlement conferences were conducted 12/4 & 12/5/02; ORDERED that another Settlement conference will be conducted at 10:00 12/12/02 ; pla's 1st motion to compel and extend discovery deadlines [108-1] set for hrg w/out oral argument for 12/11/02 is continued to 1/8/03; other deadlines as set forth in doc by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (bc) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
114 MINUTE ENTRY ( 12/19/02 ) ORDERED that dft's motion to strike EEOC's first mtn to compel and to extend discovery deadlines [112-1] & pla's motion to compel and extend discovery deadlines [108-1] are dismissed as moot by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (ijg) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
115 MINUTE ENTRY ( 12/19/02 ) The court has been advised that a 60 day conditional dismissal order may be entered by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (ijg) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
116 ORDER to dismiss case w/o costs & w/o prej . by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 12/20/02 (CLOSED) (tbl) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
118 Unopposed motion by plaintiff EEOC & ORDER that the parties have until 3/14/03 to complete settlement negotiations as set forth in doc by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 3/11/03 (ijg) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
117 MINUTE ENTRY ( 2/28/03 ) At the request of counsel for plaintiff, a conf concerning the status of settlement is set in this matter at 3:30 3/12/03 bfr the undersigned . by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (tbl) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
119 Joint motion for extension of time to complete settlement negotiations and ORDER GRANTING SAME; FURTHER ORDERED that the parties have until 3/24/03 to complete settlement negotiations and submit a finalized version of the Joint Consent Decree and Exhibits by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 3/18/03 (ijg) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
120 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to approve and enter consent decree to be heard before Judge; no hrg date set (ijg) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
121 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Lance M. Africk (ijg) (Entered:

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

Page 14 of 14

05/26/2004 04/20/2006

04/02/2003)
122 Motion by defendant TIC The Indus Co and ORDER amending the Consent Decree to extend time until 6/15/04 for filing notice of disputed claims by Judge Lance M. Africk Date Signed: 5/28/04 (dmg) Modified on 06/28/2004 (Entered: 05/28/2004)
123 NOTICE of Change of Address by Lawrence W. Marquess on behalf of TIC - The Industrial Company. (gec, ) (Entered: 04/27/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/12/2007 13:20:16

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:01-cv-01776-LMA

Billable Pages: 8

Cost:

0.64

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?734255074300504-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

 
 EEOC and TIC the Industrial Company Settle Discrimination Lawsuit

Page 1 of 2

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

JOINT PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 8, 2003

CONTACT: Patricia Bivins District Director (504) 589-3842

TTY:

Keith T. Hill Regional Attorney (504) 589-3844 (504) 589-2958

or

Colin Reed General Counsel-TIC (970) 879-2561, ext 3774

EEOC and TIC the Industrial Company Settle Discrimination Lawsuit

African-Americans to Benefit from Consent Decree
NEW ORLEANS The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and TIC The Industrial Company (TIC) today announced the entry of a $2,500,000 settlement of a class racial discrimination lawsuit filed against the Steamboat Springs, Colorado-based industrial construction company (EEOC v. TIC The Industrial Company, C.A. No. 01-1776, E.D. La). The settlement, by Consent Decree, was approved by U.S. District Court Judge Lance Africk. The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that TIC violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to recruit and hire African-Americans into construction positions. TIC has denied the allegations made by the EEOC.
Under the terms of the Consent Decree, TIC specifically denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to enter into the Consent Decree to avoid protracted litigation. The Consent Decree provides for TIC to pay $2,300,000 in damages to be allocated to African-Americans who unsuccessfully applied for work as construction workers with TIC between January 1, 1994, and November 30, 2002. In addition, TIC will pay $200,000 to establish a Minority Development Program. This program is intended by TIC to benefit African-Americans by preparing them for employment in construction positions. The program will include the distribution of funds to facilitate educational and employment opportunities for prospective TIC employees.
TIC also agreed to continue rigorous enforcement of its existing policies prohibiting discrimination and to provide mandatory training to supervisors concerning the avoidance of racial discrimination and hiring. The term of the Consent Decree is three years. "The issues raised in this lawsuit are extremely important and go to the heart of the federal anti- discrimination laws," said Keith Hill, Regional Attorney of the EEOC's New Orleans District Office. "It is fundamental to the notion of equal employment opportunity that all candidates be considered for a job based on their qualifications and without regard to race or any other illegitimate basis. During the next three years, the EEOC will work with TIC to ensure that the procedures put in place by this Consent Decree will be administered properly." Gary McKenzie, President of TIC, said, "Under this agreement, TIC will supplement its already extensive diversity training program, which is one of the principal elements of the commitment to diversity within our company. We appreciate the EEOC's attitude and cooperation in working with us to achieve an agreement that helps us achieve our goal in increasing participation of African-Americans

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-8-03.html

6/12/2007

EEOC and TIC the Industrial Company Settle Discrimination Lawsuit

Page 2 of 2

in the construction industry and in our workforce in particular. TIC does not and will not tolerate discrimination in its workplace on the basis of race. While we continue to deny the EEOC's allegations, we feel this settlement is in the best interest of all involved."
In addition to enforcing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits gender-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's website at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on April 8, 2003.
Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-8-03.html

6/12/2007

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - APRIL 2003

Page 1 of 1

EEOC Litigation Settlements April 2003
The following are brief descriptions of the some of the significant settlements reached by EEOC District Office Legal Units during April of 2003.
z EEOC v. TIC - The Industrial Company Civil Action No. 01-1776 (E.D. La. April 2, 2003)
In this Title VII lawsuit, the New Orleans District Office alleged that defendant, which builds heavy industrial facilities such as power and wastewater treatment plants, engaged in discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices on a nationwide basis which prevented blacks from being hired into construction positions because of their race. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $2.5 million in monetary relief. Of the total settlement amount, $2.3 million will be divided among identified black claimants who unsuccessfully applied for work as construction workers with TIC between January 1, 1994, and November 30, 2002. The remaining $200,000 will be used to establish a Minority Development Program to prepare blacks for employment in the construction industry. TIC shall not discriminate against blacks in hiring or recruiting of construction workers and shall not otherwise discriminate against black applicants and employees because of race. TIC also agrees to engage in targeted advertising and recruitment activities to encourage black construction workers to apply for employment with the company. On an annual basis for the three-year duration of the decree, TIC will provide EEOC with applicant flow and hiring data to evaluate whether nondiscriminatory hiring is taking place.

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement04-03.html

6/12/2007

 
 FY 2003 Office of General Counsel Annual Report

Page 1 of 1

Top Ten Cases Resolved In FY 2003 By Monetary Benefits

EEOC v. California Public Employees Retirement System

$50 million

EEOC v. Rent-A-Center

$47 million

EEOC v. Lutheran Medical Center

$5.4 million

EEOC v. Foot Locker

$3.5 million

EEOC v. TIC-The Industrial Company

$2.5 million

EEOC v. Simat, Helliesen & Eichner

$2.3 million

EEOC v. Gulfstream Aerospace

$2.2 million

EEOC v. South Beach Beverage

$1.8 million

EEOC v. DeCoster Farms

$1.5 million

EEOC v. Anchor Coin

$1.5 million

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/03annrpt/index.html

6/12/2007