Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 12

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. Janet Ginzberg (Bar # 72152) Brendan Lynch (Bar# 82675) 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-981-3700

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Adam T. Klein* Justin M. Swartz* Samuel R. Miller* Rachel Bien* 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: 212-245-1000 *pro hac vice applications forthcoming

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY MAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, and C&S ACQUISITION, INC.,
Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Jeffrey Mayer, individually and as a class representative on behalf of all others similarly situated, by his attorneys Outten & Golden LLP and Community Legal Services, Inc., makes the following allegations against Defendants Driver Solutions, Inc., Driver Solutions, LLC, Driver Holdings, LLC, and C&S Acquisitions, Inc. ("Driver Solutions," "Defendants," or "the Company"):
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. Driver Solutions specializes in training new truck drivers and placing them with well-known trucking companies. The Company refuses to procure placements for applicants with a felony conviction, no matter how old the conviction, its relation to the job, or the fitness or
1

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 12
ability of the applicant for the job. Because this practice perpetuates gross racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, it is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
PARTIES Jeffery Mayer
2. Plaintiff Jeffrey Mayer is an African American man who was born in Philadelphia and lived there for three-quarters of his 48 years. He now resides in a suburb of the city in Dresher, Pennsylvania.
3. For most of his adult life, from approximately 1989 through 2006, Mr. Mayer has supported himself, his wife, and his five daughters by working as a bus driver.
4. In approximately May 2009, Mr. Mayer applied to Driver Solutions for a placement at one of the trucking companies for which it procures drivers. Mr. Mayer already had a Class B Commercial Drivers License ("'CDL") and hoped to obtain a Class A CDL by going through Driver Solutions' training and placement program.
5. Driver Solutions refused to procure a placement for Mr. Mayer with any trucking company because of a prior felony conviction, which Mr. Mayer disclosed to Driver Solutions during a telephone interview.
6. In his current job, Mr. Mayer coordinates a team of employees who are responsible for ensuring that his employer's fleet of vehicles is maintained in good repair. Driver Solutions
7. Upon information and belief, Driver Solutions, Inc., Driver Solutions, LLC, Driver Holdings, LLC, and C&S Acquisitions, Inc. are a single integrated enterprise within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("'Title VII").
8. Upon information and belief, Defendants share a common management, have
2

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 12
common ownership, including many of the same principals and officers, and operate from the same two locations.
9. Driver Solutions, Inc. is engaged in business affecting commerce, employs more than 15 employees, and is an employment agency under Title VII.
10. Driver Solutions, Inc. uses a discriminatory background screening practice and applied it to Plaintiff and to all applicants of its services.
11. Driver Solutions, LLC is engaged in business affecting commerce, employs more than 15 employees, and is an employment agency under Title VII.
12. Driver Solutions, LLC uses a discriminatory background screening practice and applied it to Plaintiff and to all applicants of its services.
13. Driver Holdings, LLC is engaged in business affecting commerce, employs more than 15 employees, and is an employment agency under Title VII.
14. Driver Holdings, LLC uses a discriminatory background screening practice and applied it to Plaintiff and to all applicants of its services.
15. C&S Acquisitions, Inc. is engaged in business affecting commerce, employs more than 15 employees, and is an employment agency under Title VII.
16. C&S Acquisitions, Inc. uses a discriminatory background screening practice and applied it to Plaintiff and to all applicants of its services.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this claim arose under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States and under§ 717 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). 18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) because Plaintiff would have been employed in this district but for Defendants' discriminatory
3

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 4 of 12
procurement practice. PROCEDURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
19. Plaintiffhas satisfied the procedural and administrative requirements for proceeding under Title VII. On July 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a timely written Charge of Discrimination withthe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). On January 29,2010, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter to Plaintiff, which was received on February 1, 2010. Plaintiffhas commenced this action within 90 days ofhis receipt of the notice of right to sue.
BACKGROUND 20. Arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates of African Americans and Latinos far exceed those of whites nationwide. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, almost 17% of adult black males and almost 8% of Latino males have been incarcerated. By contrast, only 2.6% of white males have been incarcerated. While African Americans make up approxim1;1tely 13% of the population, they account for approximately 28% of arrests and 38% of felony convictions in state courts around the country. Similarly, Latinos are arrested and incarcerated at rates significantly higher than their proportion of the population. 21. As a result of these statistical disparities, restrictions on hiring or placing individuals with criminal records have a disproportionately severe effect on African Americans and Latinos. In other words, policies such as Driver Solutions' effectively import the discrimination present in the criminal justice system into the employment sector. This discriminatory denial of employment affects not only the individuals who are rejected, but also their families and entire communities. 22. For decades, federal courts and the EEOC have recognized that overly broad restrictions on hiring individuals with criminal records are discriminatory and illegal under Title
4

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 5 of 12
VII of the Civil Rights Act. That law requires that where significant racial disparity exists, the use of criminal history can be considered only where the employer can prove that the particular crime at issue is related to the particular job in question, and that denial of the position is necessary for the employer to conduct its business.
23. In El v. SEPTA, 479 F.3d 232 (3d Cir.2007), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals cast serious doubt over whether blanket policies, like that of Driver Solutions, that deny employment on the basis of criminal history regardless ofthe type of crime, its remoteness in time, or its relation to the job in question are justifiable under Title VII.
24. The EEOC has similarly rejected blanket policies in favor of policies that take into account the nature and gravity ofthe offense, the time that has passed since the offense, and the nature of the job in question. Even where an individual's criminal history is job-related, denial of employment can be justified only where there is no less discriminatory alternative that would meet the employer's legitimate interests. Likewise, the Uniform Guidelines on the Use of Employee Selection Procedures mandate that any selection procedure having an adverse racial impact on hiring or employment will be deemed discriminatory unless it has been validated as job-related and consistent with business necessity.
25. In this case, Driver Solutions, "the most comprehensive source for entry level truck driving jobs" within the Midwest, Southeast and East Coast, has a blanket practice of refusing to procure trucking jobs for applicants with any felony conviction. Such an outright ban disqualifies job applicants, like Plaintiff, whose criminal history has no bearing on their fitness or ability to perform the job.
26. In addition to being unlawful, such practices are bad public policy. The ability to find employment is an essential aspect of an ex-offender's re-entry into society. Recidivism declines when ex-offenders have viable employment prospects and other stabilizing resources in
5

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 6 of 12
their communities. Driver Solutions' practice of discriminating against individuals' with criminal records frustrates such public policy objectives. The trucking industry is also losing good workers like Mr. Mayer for no good reason.
PLAINTIFF'S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 27. In May 2009, Mr. Mayer filled out an application form on Driver Solutions' website be placed with one of the trucking companies for which Driver Solutions procures applicants. 28. According to Driver Solutions' website, its "hiring area" includes a "large portion" of the Midwest, Southeast, and East coast regions of the United States. 29. Upon information and belief, Drivers Solutions places applicants in trucking positions near to where the applicants live. 30. It was Mr. Mayer's belief that he was applying for a trucking job located in or around his home in eastern Pennsylvania. 31. Mr. Mayer had over 18 years of experience as a bus operator when he applied for the placement. 32. Soon after completing the application on Driver Solutions' website, Mr. Mayer received a telephone call from David Locke, a Driver Agent, at Driver Solutions. The purpose of the call was to interview Mr. Mayer for a placement. 33. During the interview, Mr. Mayer told Mr. Locke that he had a prior felony conviction and asked him whether that would have any impact on his placement. 34. Mr. Locke told Mr. Mayer that, due to his conviction, he did not fit the hiring criteria ofthe trucking companies for which Driver Solutions recruits. 35. Mr. Locke further told Mr. Mayer that as a result of the felony conviction, Driver Solutions would not procure or attempt to procure employment for Mr. Mayer with any of the
6

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 7 of 12
trucking companies for which it recruits. 36. In fact, Driver Solutions tells prospective applicants on the Frequently Asked
Questions section of its website that it "cannot accept applicants with a felony conviction (or deferred/adjudicated) into the [Commercial Drivers License] training program."
37. Driver Solutions states in the same section of its website that individuals with felony convictions can obtain Commercial Drivers Licenses ("CDLs").
38. Mr. Mayer's felony conviction was in 1986. In 1984, when Mr. Mayer was 21years-old, he was arrested in connection with a robbery of a grocery store. Mr. Mayer contested the charges, claiming that he was mistaken for another man who looked like him, but was convicted and served a total of approximately five years in prison.
39. In the more than 20 years since his release in 1989, Mr. Mayer married, cared for his five daughters, and has consistently been employed. He has never been arrested or convicted of another crime.
40. The prior conviction had no bearing on Mr. Mayer's ability or fitness to perform the duties of a truck driver, as his many years as a bus driver and his desistence of arrest for 20 years demonstrate.
41. In fact, the U.S. Department of Transportation, which regulates CDLs, permits individuals with felonies to obtain such licenses unless the individual is unauthorized to drive because of a felony involving a motor vehicle.
42. The HAZMAT Endorsement Threat Assessment Program (49 U.S.C. § 5103(a)(1)), which governs the eligibility requirements for transporters ofhazardous materials, also recognizes that criminal records restrictions on employment may not and should not be applied in an overbroad manner. The Program disqualifies only the most serious felonies, such as murder, espionage, acts of terrorism and crimes related to explosive devices. Individuals can
7

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 8 of 12
petition for a waiver of the disqualification for almost all crimes. All other offenses are prohibitive of a HAZMAT clearance only if they occurred within the seven years before the application for the HAZMAT permit. (49 C.F.R. § 1572).
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 47. Plaintiffbrings his class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of a class defined as follows: All Latino and African American persons for whom Driver Solutions refused to procure employment based on their actual or presumed criminal background between September 26, 2008 and the date ofjudgment in this action (the "Class"). 48. Plaintiff is a member of the Class. 49. Upon information and belief, the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable. Driver Solutions bills itself as "the most comprehensive source for entry level truck driving jobs" within the Midwest, Southeast and East Coast. Upon information and belief, hundreds of applicants apply to Driver Solutions for placements each week. Plaintiffs do not know the precise number of Class Members - this information is in Defendant's possession. 50. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include, among others: (1) whether it is Driver Solutions' policy or practice to reject applicants based on their criminal records; (2) what screening parameters Driver Solutions uses to reject applicants based on their criminal records; (3) whether Driver Solutions' policy or practice to reject applicants based on their criminal records has a disparate impact on Latino and African American applicants; (4) whether Driver Solutions' policy or practice to reject applicants based on their criminal records is job-related and consistent with business necessity; and (5) what equitable and injunctive relief for the Class is warranted.
8

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 9 of 12
51. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class: (I) Plaintiff applied for a placement with a trucking company for which Defendants procure employees; (2) Plaintiff was subjected to substantially the same screening device as other Class members; (3) Defendants refused to procure employment for Plaintiff when it learned ofhis criminal history; and (4) Plaintiff has the same discrimination claim as other Class members based on disparate impact. All of these claims are substantially shared by each and every class member.
52. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members ofthe Class. Plaintiffhas no conflict with any class member. Plaintiff is committed to the goal of having Driver Solutions revise its placement policy and practice to eliminate its discriminatory impact on African American and Latino applicants.
53. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex employment discrimination class actions.
54. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Driver Solutions has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Classes as a whole. The Class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Driver Solutions' common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and/or practices.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF Disparate Impact
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C §§ 2000(e) et seq.
(Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) 55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 56. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class. 57. Defendants' overbroad policy and practice of denying employment opportunities based on applicants' criminal histories harmed Plaintiff and the Class and constitutes unlawful
9

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 10 of 12
race and/or national origin discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq. 58. Defendants' overbroad policy and practice of denying employment opportunities
based on applicants' criminal histories has a disparate impact on Latinos and African Americans, and is neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity. Even if Defendants' policy and practice could be justified by business necessity, less discriminatory alternatives exist that would equally serve any alleged necessity.
59. Plaintiff and the Class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiff and the Class he seeks to represent are now suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Defendants' discriminatory acts and
OmiSSIOnS.
60. Defendants' conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiff and the members ofthe Title VII substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class pray for relief as follows:
1. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Class; 2. Designation of Representative Plaintiff Jeffrey Mayer as representative on behalf
ofthe Class; 3. Designation ofRepresentative Plaintiff's counsel of record as Class counsel; 4. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and
violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; 5. A preliminary and permanent injtinction against Defendants and their officers,
agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in
10

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 11 of 12

concert with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, customs and usages set forth herein; 6. An order that Defendants institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for all applicants regardless of criminal history status, unless such status can be justified as job-related and consistent with business necessity, where no less discriminatory alternative exists, and that Defendants eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; 7. An order instating Plaintiff and the Class members in Driver Solutions' training and placement program, or in lieu of instatement, an order for back and front pay (including interest) and benefits; 8. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys' fees to the extent allowable by law, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(k); 9. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and 10. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

Dated: April~ 0 , 2010
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Respectfully submitted,
By: d~±~
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
Janet Ginzberg (Bar# 72152) Brendan Lynch (Bar# 82675) 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 191 02 Telephone: 215-981-3700

11

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 1 Filed 04/30/10 Page 12 of 12 OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Adam T. Klein* Justin M. Swartz* Samuel R. Miller* Rachel Bien* 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: 212-245-1000
*pro hac vice applicationsforthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
12

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 19

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. Janet Ginzberg (Bar # 72152) Brendan Lynch (Bar # 82675) 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-981-3700

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Adam T. Klein*
Justin M. Swartz*
Samuel R. Miller*
Rachel Bien* 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: 212-245-1000
* Admitted pro hac vice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY MAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,
v.
DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, and C&S ACQUISITION, INC.,

FIRST AMENDED CLASS 
 ACTION COMPLAINT 

V0 elf J~39

Defendants.

I
I i Plaintiff, Jeffrey Mayer, individually and as a class representative on behalf of all o~hers
I
similarly situated, by his attorneys Outten & Golden LLP and Community Legal Services, Inc.,
I
makes the following allegations against Defendants Driver Solutions, Inc., Driver Solutioris,
I
LLC, Driver Holdings, LLC, and C&S Acquisitions, Inc. ("Driver Solutions," "Defendantst or
:1
"the Company"):

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I

!

)

L Driver Solutions specializes in training new truck drivers and placing them ~\rith

well-known trucking companies. The Company refuses to procure placements for applican:"ts
I I
with a felony conviction, no matter how old the conviction, its relation to the job, or the fittless or

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 19

ability of the applicant for the job. Because this practice perpetuates gross racial and ethni4

disparities in the criminal justice system, it is unla'M'ul under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

I

1964.

!

I

PARTIES

Jeffery Mayer

2. Plaintiff Jeffrey Mayer is an African American man who was born in

Philadelphia and lived iliere for iliree-quarters of his 48 years. He now resides in a sUburr of

the city in Dresher, Pennsylvania.

3. For most of his adult life, from approximately 1989 through 2006, Mr. MaYrr has

supported himself, his wife, and his five daughters by working as a bus driver.

4. In approximately May 2009, Mr. Mayer applied to Driver Solutions for a

placement at one of the trucking companies for which it procures drivers. Mr. Mayer alreafY had

a Class B Commercial Drivers License ("CDL") and hoped to obtain a Class A CDL by gOfng

through Driver Solutions' training and placement program.
j
5. Driver Solutions refused to procure a placement for Mr. Mayer with any trutking

company because of a prior felony conviction, which Mr. Mayer disclosed to Driver Solutions

during a telephone interview.

6. In his current job, Mr. Mayer coordinates a team of employees who are

responsible for ensuring that his employer's fleet of vehicles is maintained in good repair"

Driver Solutions

7. Upon information and belief, Driver Solutions, Inc., Driver Solutions, LLC,

Driver Holdings, LLC, and C&S Acquisitions, Inc. are a single integrated enterprise withil the

meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title Vb").
I
8. Upon information and belief, Defendants share a common management, ha\je

2 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 19

common ownership, including many of the same principals and officers, and operate from te
i
same two locations.

9. Driver Solutions, Inc. is engaged in business affecting commerce, employs fore

than 15 employees, and is an employment agency under Title VII.

I
I

,
10. Driver Solutions, Inc. uses a discriminatory background screening practice td

applied it to Plaintiff and to all applicants of its services.

I

!

11. Driver Solutions, LLC is engaged in business affecting commerce, employs !more

than 15 employees, and is an employment agency under Title VII.

12. Driver Solutions, LLC uses a discriminatory background screening practice ;and

11

applied it to Plaintiff and to all applicants of its services.

I

13. Driver Holdings, LLC is engaged in business affecting commerce, employs ~ore

than 15 employees, and is an employment agency under Title VII.
I
I
14. Driver Holdings, LLC uses a discriminatory background screening practice rd

applied it to Plaintiff and to all applicants of its services.

15.

1 C&S

Acquisitions,

Inc.

is

engaged

in

business

affecting

commerce,

emPloY

more
,

than 15 employees, and is an employment agency under Title VII.

!

16. C&S Acquisitions, Inc. uses a discriminatory background screening practic4 and

applied it to Plaintiff and to all applicants of its services.

I

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this claim arose undt the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States and under § 717 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-5(t).

18. At all relevant times, Defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in

Pennsylvania.

3 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 4 of 19

19. Defendants purposefully reach out to residents of Pennsylvania through

1
advertisements on their website that directly target Pennsylvanians. A true and correct coPt of

one such webpage contained on Defendants' website is attached as Exhibit A.

I!

i
20. Such advertisements state, inter alia, "The Driver Solutions Network ... ha$

numerous trucking job opportunities throughout the state of Pennsylvania," and "With citi1like

Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Scranton and York, Pennsylvania offers a good deal of trucking jqb
:!

options." 21.

I
Defendants' website also states: "We Work With Some Of The Best Name1 In

The Trucking Industry. That's the biggest benefit of beginning a trucking career through Dlriver

Solutions. We already have partnerships with the trucking companies new drivers want to fork

for. Each of these companies is well-known, well-respected and counts on us to find new, quality
I
"
drivers for them. In tum, they agree to sponsor the training of new drivers like you and pay:the

full tuition costs up front."

22. Two of the companies having partnerships with Defendants are PAM Trans,Wort
I'
and USA Truck. PAM Transport and USA Truck both operate trucking routes in and throu\gh
pennSYI~ia Pennsylvania Upon infoonation and belief, USA Truck has a teonina! in Bethel,

23. Pennsylvania is among the states included in Defendants' "hiring area," desdribed

on their website.

I

I
24. Individuals wishing to apply for Defendants' recruitment services submit their

i

applications to Defendants by submitting an online form through Defendants' website.

25. The application form requests applicants' address and telephone number.

26. Upon information and belief, Defendants have received applications from

Pennsylvania residents submitted electronically through their website, including Plaintiffs

application.

4 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 5 of 19

27. Upon information and belief, Defendants have entered into contracts with

r residents of Pennsylvania. On their website, in response to the question, "If you are cOnSiding
truck driver training programs at Driver Solutions, you may be wondering if you will have sign

a contract." Defendants state, "The answer is Yes."

I

28. Defendants' website is highly interactive. For instance, it solicits viewers td

submit comments to blogs written by Company employees and officers.

29. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) because

Plaintiff would have been employed in this district but for Defendant's discriminatory

procurement practice.
I
30. As described below, Defendants' website contains information that promise~ that

applicants will be placed in a trucking position near to where they live.

PROCEDURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

31. Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural and administrative requirements for

proceeding under Title VII. On July 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a timely written Charge of

Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

January 29,2010, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter to Plaintiff, which was received on
I
February 1,2010. Plaintiff has commenced this action within 90 days of his receipt of the rotice

of right to sue.

I

I BACKGROUND

32. Arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates of African Americans and Lati*os far
II
exceed those of whites nationwide. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, almost !17%

of adult black males and almost 8% of Latino males have been incarcerated. By contrast,

2.6% of white males have been incarcerated. While African Americans make up approxi ately

13% of the population, they account for approximately 28% of arrests and 38% of felony

5 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 6 of 19

I
convictions in state courts around the country. Similarly, Latinos are arrested and incarC1rated

at rates significantly higher than their proportion of the population.

33. As a result of these statistical disparities, restrictions on hiring or placing

individuals with criminal records have a disproportionately severe effect on African Americans
, and Latinos. In other words, policies such as Driver Solutions' effectively import the
I discrimination present in the criminal justice system into the employment sector. This

discriminatory denial of employment affects not only the individuals who are rejected, but tlso

their families and entire communities.

'

34. For decades, federal courts and the EEOC have recognized that overly broa1

restrictions on hiring individuals with criminal records are discriminatory and illegal underlTitle

VII of the Civil Rights Act. That law requires that where significant racial disparity exists,:the
I!
use of criminal history can be considered only where the employer can prove that the Partitlar
I crime at issue is related to the particular job in question, and that denial of the position is

necessary for the employer to conduct its business.

35. In El v. SEPTA, 479 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2007), the Third Circuit Court of APialS
.1 cast serious doubt over whether blanket policies,like that of Driver Solutions, that deny

employment on the basis of criminal history regardless of the type of crime, its remoteness ;in

time, or its relation to the job in question are justifiable under Title VII.

I

h~S fav~r 36. The EEOC similarly rejected blanket policies in

of policies that t1e into

account the nature and graVIty of the offense, the tIme that has passed smce the offense, anQ the
Ii
nature of the job in question. Even where an individual's criminal history is job-related, d~fial of

employment can be justified only where there is no less discriminatory alternative that woJld

I meet the employer's legitimate interests. Likewise, the Uniform Guidelines on the Use of

i
Employee Selection Procedures mandate that any selection procedure having an adverse rabial

I

I

6

I

i

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 7 of 19

l
impact on hiring or employment will be deemed discriminatory unless it has been validated as

job-related and consistent with business necessity.

I

37. In this case, Driver Solutions, "the most comprehensive source for entry levL
I
,I
truck driving jobs" within the Midwest, Southeast and East Coast, has a blanket practice Of!

refusing to procure trucking jobs for applicants with any felony conviction. Such an outrigrt ban
t
disqualifies job applicants, like Plaintiff, whose criminal history has no bearing on their fit~ess or

ability to perform the job.

38. In addition to being unlawful, such practices are bad public policy. The abi~ty to

find employment is an essential aspect of an ex-offender's re-entry into society. Recidivisrh

declines when ex-offenders have viable employment prospects and other stabilizing resourtes in

their communities. Driver Solutions' practice of discriminating against individuals' with criminal
':
records frustrates such public policy objectives. The trucking industry is also losing good workers

like Mr. Mayer for no good reason.

PLAINTIFF'S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

39. In May 2009, Mr. Mayer filled out an application form on Driver Solutions'

website be placed with one of the trucking companies for which Driver Solutions procures

applicants.

40. According to Driver Solutions' website, its "hiring area" includes a "large

portion" of the Midwest, Southeast, and East coast regions of the United States.

41. At all times relevant, Plaintiff resided in Driver Solutions' hiring area.

42. Upon information and belief, Driver Solutions places applicants in trucking

positions near to where the applicants live.

43. On Defendants' website, Defendants state in response to the question, "Do Ihave

to live within the Driver Solutions recruiting or hiring area?":

7 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 8 of 19

Yes. Because the Driver Solutions program is a company sponsored CDL training program, you must be eligible to work for the trucking company that sponsors your truck driver training. In order for the company to hire you, you must first have an established residence within their specific hiring area.

44. Defendants' website also states, "Through our Driver Solutions company P1d

CDL training program, we can help put you into a pre-arranged truck driving job opportllIliltY in
I PennsyIvania. Complete our online trucking application today to get your truck driver trailing

started." 45.

I
In addition, Defendants' website states, "Trucking Companies have specific

geographical hiring areas or may offer regional or dedicated routes. Driver Solutions will +e

into account where you live."

46. The website also tells applicants that Driver Solutions will "match you with ia

Driver Solutions Network training school in your area and make all the necessary arrangeJents."
"
47. It was Mr. Mayer's belief that he was applying for a trucking job located iJ,' or

around his home in eastern Pennsylvania.

'

48. Mr. Mayer had over 18 years of experience as a bus operator when he apPlild for

the placement.

I

I
49. Soon after completing the application on Driver Solutions' website, Mr. Marr

received a telephone call from David Locke, a Driver Agent, at Driver Solutions. The purppse of

the call was to interview Mr. Mayer for a placement.

50. During the interview, Mr. Mayer told Mr. Locke that he had a prior felony

conviction and asked him whether that would have any impact on his placement.

51. Mr. Mayer had seen a statement on Driver Solutions' website that it does no\ place

applicants with criminal histories.

I

52. Mr. Locke told Mr. Mayer that, due to his conviction, he did not fit the hirin~
I

8 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 9 of 19

criteria of the trucking companies for which Driver Solutions recruits.

jl

53. Mr. Locke further told Mr. Mayer that as a result of the felony conviction, ,river
I
Solutions would not procure or attempt to procure employment for Mr. Mayer with any of 1he

trucking companies for which it recruits.

54. In fact, Driver Solutions tells prospective applicants on the Frequently Aske

Questions section of its website that it "cannot accept applicants with a felony conviction (: r

deferred/adjudicated) into the [Commercial Drivers License] training program."

55. Driver Solutions states in the same section of its website that individuals Wif

felony convictions can obtain Commercial Drivers Licenses ("CDLs").

:

56. Mr. Mayer's felony conviction was in 1986. In 1984, when Mr. Mayer was 21­ years-old, he was arrested in connection with a robbery of a grocery store. Mr. Mayer con~ested
I
the charges, claiming that he was mistaken for another man who looked like him, but was

convicted and served a total of approximately five years in prison.

57. In the more than 20 years since his release in 1989, Mr. Mayer married, car·d for
I
his five daughters, and has consistently been employed. He has never been arrested or conficted
I
of another crime.

58. The prior conviction had no bearing on Mr. Mayer's ability or fitness to per orm

the duties of a truck driver, as his many years as a bus driver and his desistence of arrest fo 20

years demonstrate.

59. In fact, the U.S. Department of Transportation, which regulates CDLs, pe

individuals with felonies to obtain such licenses unless the individual is unauthorized to dr' e

because of a felony involving a motor vehicle.

60. The HAZMAT Endorsement Threat Assessment Program (49 U.S.C. § 


51 03(aXl)), which governs the eligibility requirements for transporters of hazardous mate1als, 


9
I

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 10 of 19

~ also recognizes that criminal records restrictions on employment may not and should not

applied in an overbroad manner. The Program disqualifies only the most serious felonies, ~uch as
,
murder, espionage, acts of terrorism and crimes related to explosive devices. Individuals c~
petition for a waiver of the disqualification for almost all crimes. All other offenses are !
I prohibitive of a HAZMAT clearance only if they occurred within the seven years before thr!

application for the HAZMAT permit. (49 C.F.R. § 1572).

59.

+ CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff brings his class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and (b)(2)

behalf of a class defined as follows: All Latino and African American persons for whom 1

Defendant(s) have failed or refused to procure employment or refer for employment, or Whr have

been deterred from gaining referral for or procurement of employment, based on their crim!nal
I
background between September 26, 2008 and the date ofjudgment in this action (the "C1asr'").

60. Plaintiff is a member of the Class.

61. Upon information and belief, the members of the Class are so numerous tha~

joinder of all of them is impracticable. Driver Solutions bills itself as "the most compreheJsive

source for entry level truck driving jobs" within the Midwest, Southeast and East Coast. u10n
I
information and belief, hundreds of applicants apply to Driver Solutions for placements ea1h
week. Plaintiffs do not know the precise number of Class Members this information is i~

Defendant's possession.

62. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class and these qUestioJ
I
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions in~lude,

among others: (I) whether Driver Solutions' stated policy on its website that it does not s f

placements for applicants with criminal records deters individuals with criminal records fro;m I
~
applying to Driver Solutions; (2) whether it is Driver Solutions' policy or practice to reject

10 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 11 of 19

applicants based on their criminal records; (3) what screening parameters Driver Solutions ~ses to

reject applicants based on their criminal records; (4) whether Driver Solutions' policy or prrtice

to reject applicants based on their criminal records has a disparate impact on Latino and Art,ican American applicants; (5) whether Driver Solutions' policy or practice to reject applicants bred

on their criminal records is job-related and consistent with business necessity; and (6) what

I

equitable and injunctive relief for the Class is warranted.

I

63. Plaintiff's claims are typical ofthe claims ofthe Class: (1) Plaintiff applied tor a
I
placement with a trucking company for which Defendant procures employees; (2) Plaintiffrlas

subjected to substantially the same screening device as other Class members; (3) Defendan
I
refused to procure employment for Plaintiff when it learned of his criminal history; and (4)1

Plaintiff has the same discrimination claim as other Class members based on disparate impJct.

All of these claims are substantially shared by each and every class member.

i

64. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
members of the Class. Plaintiff has no conflict with any class member. Plaintiff is commi~ted to

the goal of having Driver Solutions revise its placement policy and practice to eliminate its

discriminatory impact on African American and Latino applicants.

65. Plaintiff has retained COWlSei competent and experienced in complex emPlofment

discrimination class actions.

i

becaUS! 66. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. IL Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

Driver Solutions has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Clas;s,
1
~
making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Classet as a

whole. The Class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Driver Solutions' commop,

uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and/or practices.

11 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 12 of 19

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Disparate Impact 


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
 42 U.S.C §§ 2000(e) et seq. 

(Brought on BehaH of Plaintiff and the Class) 


l

67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphi . l
I 68. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class.

69. Defendant's overbroad policy and practice of denying employment oppo~ities
based on applicants' criminal histories harmed Plaintiff and the Class and constitutes unIa~fi.ll

race and/or national origin discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq.

70. Defendant's overbroad policy and practice of denying employment opportm!uties
!
based on applicants' criminal histories has a disparate impact on Latinos and African Ametcans,

and is neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity. Even if Defendant's policr and

practice could be justified by business necessity, less discriminatory alternatives exist that tou1d

equally serve any alleged necessity.

I

71. Plaintiff and the Class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law t t

redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only eans

1
of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiff and the Class he seeks to represent are 10w

suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Defendant's discriminatory a~ts and

1

I

omISSIOns.

I

i 72. Defendant's conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiff and the

members ofthe Title VII substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits.

12 


I Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 13 of 19 I

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I

WHIEREF::~:::::i:f::~:C~:::::::~i::a:e:;::~eproposed Class; I

I

2. Designation of Representative Plaintiff Jeffrey Mayer as representative on b11iehalf

of the Class;

.

I

3. Designation of Representative Plaintiffs counsel of record as Class counsel

4. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawfu~ and
'1 violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq

5. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant and its officers, ~ gents,
I
successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in cotcert

with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, cust01s and

usages set forth herein;

6. An order that Defendant institute and carry out policies, practices, and progrlams

that provide equal employment opportunities for all applicants regardless of
I criminal history status, unless such status can be justified as job-related and

consistent with business necessity, where no less discriminatory alternative tXists,

and that Defendant eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful I

employment practices;

7. An order instating Plaintiff and the Title VII Class members in Driver Solutipns'
training and placement program, or in lieu of instatemen~ an order for back rd

front pay (including interest) and benefits;

I

8. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys' fees to the extent allorble

by law, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(k);

I

I

9. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and

13

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 14 of 19

10. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necesr'

just, and proper.

I

Dated: July 22,2010 New York, New York

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
Janet Ginzberg (Bar # 72152) Brendan Lynch (Bar # 82675) 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-981-3700
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Adam T. Klein* 
 Justin M. Swartz* 
 Samuel R. Miller* 
 Rachel Bien* 
 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor 
 New York, New York 10016 
 Telephone: 212-245-1000 

* Admittedpro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative CI. ss

14 


Truck Driver Jobs ~ PennsylvCanaiaseTr2u:c1k0D-crviv-i0n1g9J3o9bs-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 15 of 19
GreatCDLTraining.com "Truck Oriver Jobs ~> Pennsylvania Truck Driving Jobs

Page 1 of3

Home

How It Works

Driving Jobs

Understanding Trucking

COL Training

Apply Now

Pennsylvania ~ Truck Driving Jobs
The Driver Solutions Network offers some of the best CDL truck driver training programs in the country, and has numerous trucking job opportunities throughout the state of Pennsylvania. From Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and from Scranton to York, Driver Solutions will help put you in the drivers seat of a great, new truck driving career in no time!

-------_._------­

Job TitielDescription
Truck Driver· COL Training & Truck Driver Job Experience: Entry Level I Pay $35K - $40K
View Job Descrlh!lion
Truck Driver - COL Training & Entry level Job Experience: Entry Leyel I Pay: S3SK- S40K
View Job Description
Truck Driver - Company Paid COL Training Provided
Experionce: Entry Level I Pay: S35K - S40K View Job DescJlQ:tian
Truck Driver. COL Truck Driver Training Provided Expenence: Entry Leve' I Pay: S35K ~ S40K
View Job Descrlplion
Truck Driver - COL Truck Driver Training Provided Experience: Entry Level I Pay: $35K - $40K
View Job Descri[l:tion
Truck Driver· Truck Driver Training Provided Expenenc.: Entry Level I Pay: $35K - $70K
Vie~ Job Descrigtion
Truck Driver - Truck Driver Training Provided Experience: EntlY Level I Pay: $35K- $40K
View Jab Description
Truck Driver - Company Paid COL Training & Entry Level Job
Experience: Entry Level I Pay. S3SK - S40K View Job Description
.IrJ.l.(;k..D.ri't!t!J:.:..Cm:npany !?aid COL Irailling..&..Entr::y
Level Job Expe"ence: Entry Level I Pay: $35K - $40K
~i~w Job Descril2tion

Company PAM Transport PAM Transport PAM Transport
USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck
USA Truck

location Allentown PA Harrisburg PA
York. PA Pittsburgh PA Ph iladell2hia PA Scranton, PA Altoona PA Williamsport. PA
Bethlehem PA

News

FAQ

r ~ l. Q, C'"

http://www.greatcdltraining.comltruck~driver~jobs/pennsylvania~truck~driving-jobs

7/9/2010

Truck Driver Jobs - PennsylvCanaiaseTr2u:c1k0D-crviv-i0n1g9J3o9b-sJCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 16 of 19

Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job Experience: Entry level I Pay. S35K - S40K
View Job Description
Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job
Experience: Entry Level I Pay- 535K - S40K View Job Description
Truck Driver-Company Paid CDL Training &Entry Level Job
Experien",,: Entry Level I Pay: $35K - $40K View Job Description
Truck Driver- Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job Experience: Entry Level I Pay: S35K ~ S40K
View Job Description
Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job Experience: Entry Level I Pay: S35K - S40K
View Job Description
Truck Driver- Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job
Experience: Entry level I Pay; S35K - S40K View Job Description
Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training &Entry Level Job
Expefi.n",,: Entry Level I Pay: $35K - S40K View Job Description
Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job Experience. Entry Level I Pay: S35K - S40K
View Job Description
Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job Experience: Entry Level I Pay: S35K - S40K
View Job Description
Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job
Experience: Entry Level I Pay: S35K - S40K VitwJQb DescriPtion
Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job
Experience: Entry Level I Pay: S35K - S40K View Job Oescriotion
Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training &Entry Level Job

USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck USA Truck

York PA Chambersburg PA
Ene PA Harrisburg PA Johnstown PA Lancaster. PA McKeesport PA Meadville. PA New Castle PA Reading. PA State College. PA

Truck Driver - Company Paid CDL Training & Entry Level Job

USA Truck

Washington. PA

http://www.greatcd1training.comltruck~driver-jobs/pennsylvania-truck-driving-jobs

Page 2 of3 7/9/2010

Truck Driver Jobs - PennsylvCanaiaseTr2u:c1k0D-crviv-0in1g9J3o9b-sJCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 17 of 19

Experience: Entry Level I Pay S35K- $40K
View Job De~cription

Truck Driver - Company Paid Truck Driving School Experience. Entry Level I Pay: S35K - S40K
VieW Job Description

USA Truck

Truck Driver - Company Paid COL Training &Entry Level Job Experience; Entry Level I Pay: S35K - $<10K
View Job Description

USA Truck

Truck Driver - Company-paid COL Training
Experience, Entry Level I Pay_ S35K - S4QK
View Job Description

PAM Transport

Allentown PA Wilkes Barre, PA Philadelphia PA

Home

Understanding Trucking 'Nhy Choose Trucking? Trucking Careers 'Nhat is a COL? Trucker lifestyle Truck Driver Expectations Truck Driver Pay 'Nhat is an LTL Job? 'Nhat is an OTR Job? DOT Qualifications How to be Successful Trucking Terms

News
----=rrucklng News Driver Solutions News Company News Trucking Articles
Apply Now
E8Q
Truck Driller Jobs
fl!Qg

Page 3 of3

http://www.greatcdltraining.com/truck-driver-jobs/pennsylvania-truck-driving-jobs

7/912010

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 18 of 19

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 
 Janet Ginzberg (Bar # 72152) 
 Brendan Lynch (Bar # 82675) 
 1424 Chestnut Street 
 Philadelphia, PA 19102 
 Telephone: 215-981-3700 


OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

Adam T. Klein* 

Justin M. Swartz* 
 Samuel R. Miller* 

Rachel Bien* 
 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor 

New York, New York 10016 

Telephone: 212-245-1000 

* Admittedpro hac vice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


JEFFREY MAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, and C&S ACQUISITION, INC.,
Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Olivia J. Quinto-Reyes, under penalties of perjury, certify the following as true al!1d

I

Ofti correct: I am not a party to this action; I am over 18 years of age; and I am a resident

City

and State of New York, New York.

I hereby certify that on July 23, 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the foreg1ng

Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, herewith by causing same to be served by process server to the

following attorneys of record for Driver Solutions, Inc., Driver Solutions, LLC, Driver Ho dings,

LLC, and C&S Acquisition, Inc., defendant in this action, whose last known address is:

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 19 of 19
JACQUELINE K. GALLAGHER 
 JACOB M. SITMAN 

Obennayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP 
 1617 J.F.K. Blvd 

One Penn Ctr. 19th FI 
 Philadelphia, Pa 19103-1895 

Dated: New York, New York July 23,2010
BY1~~.r.~-------------

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY MAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, and C&S ACQUISITION, INC.,

10-CV-1939 (JCJ)

Defendants.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPOINTMENT
OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL AS CLASS COUNSEL, AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Plaintiff’s Counsel as Class Counsel, and Approval of the Proposed Notice of Settlement and Class Action Settlement Procedure (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”) and in the Declaration of Rachel Bien and the accompanying exhibits (“Bien Decl.”), Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order:
(1) granting preliminary approval of the Joint Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”), attached as Exhibit B to the Bien Decl.;
(2) conditionally certifying the proposed settlement class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for purposes of effectuating the settlement;
(3) appointing Outten & Golden LLP and Community Legal Services, Inc. as Class Counsel;

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 42

(4) approving the Proposed Notice of Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit and Fairness Hearing, attached to the Bien Decl. as Exhibit C, and the Claims Form, attached to the Bien Decl. as Exhibit D, and directing their distribution;
(5) approving the parties’ proposed schedule for final settlement approval; and (6) granting such other, further, or different relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 17, 2012 New York, New York

Respectfully submitted, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP By: /s/ Rachel Bien Rachel Bien COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. Janet Ginzberg (Bar # 72152) Brendan Lynch (Bar # 82675) 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-981-3700 OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Adam T. Klein* Samuel R. Miller* Rachel Bien* Sandra Pullman* 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 *Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed Class

2

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLASS ACTION

JEFFREY MAYER, individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

10-CV-1939 (JCJ)

Plaintiff,

v.

DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, and C&S ACQUISITION, INC.,

Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPOINTMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL AS CLASS COUNSEL, AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND
CLASS ACTION PROCEDURE The above-entitled matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Plaintiff’s Counsel as Class Counsel, and Approval of the Proposed Notice of Settlement and Class Action Settlement Procedure (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”) (Docket No. 47). I. Preliminary Approval of Settlement 1. Based upon the Court’s review of the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval and the Declaration of Rachel Bien (“Bien Decl.”) and the exhibits attached thereto, the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”), attached to the Bien Decl. as Exhibit B.

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 4 of 42
2. The Court concludes that the Settlement Agreement is within the range of possible settlement approval, such that notice to the class is appropriate. See Smith v. Prof'l Billing & Mgmt. Services, Inc., No. 06-4453, 2007 WL 4191749, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2007) (approving settlement where the amount was within a reasonable range); In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litig., Nos. 04-5184, 05-1079, 2007 WL 2589950, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2007) (granting preliminary approval to a class action settlement where the settlement agreement was sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate).
3. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is the result of extensive, arm’slength negotiations by counsel well-versed in the prosecution of Title VII class actions.
4. The assistance of an experienced mediator, Alfred G. Feliu, Esq., reinforces that the Settlement Agreement is non-collusive. II. Conditional Certification of the Proposed Rule 23 Settlement Class
5. The Court provisionally certifies the following class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), for settlement purposes (“Settlement Class”):
All Latino and African American individuals who submitted applications to Defendants for a placement with one of the trucking companies for which Defendants recruit inexperienced truck drivers and whom Defendants rejected based on their criminal background between January 24, 2009 and September 30, 2010. 6. Plaintiff meets all of the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3). 7. Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) because there are potentially thousands of class members and, thus, joinder is impracticable. See Jones v. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., No. 05-5600, 2007 WL 2085357, at *3 (D.N.J. July 16, 2007) (“classes of close to one hundred members are sufficient”) (citing Eisenberg v. Gannon, 766 F.2d 770, 785-86 (3d Cir. 1985)).
2

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 5 of 42
8. Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) because Plaintiff and the class members share common issues of fact and law, including whether Defendants’ criminal background hiring policy had a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos and whether it was justified by business necessity. See Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 227 (3d Cir. 2001) (commonality satisfied where “at least one common question of fact or law exists among the putative class”); Lanning v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 176 F.R.D. 132, 150-51 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (commonality satisfied where “[t]he legality of SEPTA’s conduct is central to the claims of all the plaintiffs and prospective class members”); Webb v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.R.D. 645, 652 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (commonality satisfied where all class members were allegedly denied positions based on race).
9. Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) because Plaintiff’s and the class members’ claims arise from the same course of events – they all applied for entry-level truck driver placements and were denied those placements as a result of Defendants’ criminal background hiring policy. They also make the same legal arguments in support of their claims – that Defendants’ criminal background policy had a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos and was not justified by business necessity. See Lanning, 176 F.R.D. at 151 (typicality satisfied because “[t]he legal claims of the named plaintiffs and those of the proposed class members are identical” and “the factual circumstances from which the claims of the named plaintiffs and proposed class members arose are strikingly similar”); Webb, 78 F.R.D. at 652 (typicality satisfied where plaintiffs were all subject to the same discriminatory personnel policies).
10. Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) because there is no evidence that the Plaintiff’s and the class members’ interests are at odds. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
3

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 6 of 42
521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997) (“The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.”) In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel are competent and well-versed in employment law and class action law. See, e.g., Easterling v. Connecticut, Dept. of Corr., 265 F.R.D. 45, 51 n.2 (D. Conn. 2010), modified sub nom. Easterling v. Connecticut Dept. of Corr., No. 3:08 Civ. 826, 2011 WL 5864829 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2011); Ralston v. Zats, No. Civ. 94-3723, 2000 WL 1781590, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2000).
11. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants applied the criminal background hiring policy uniformly to all members of the class, and thus the class as a whole shares the same interest in obtaining the injunctive relief provided by the settlement – prospective changes to the policy. See Bien Decl. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 3.6(A) & Ex. B (Revised Hiring Criteria). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2557, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011) (“The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
12. Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages satisfies Rule 23(b)(3). Common factual allegations and a common legal theory predominate over any factual or legal variations among class members. See Easterling v. Connecticut Dept. of Corr., No. 3:08 Civ. 826, 2011 WL 5864829, at *8 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2011); United States v. City of New York, 276 F.R.D. 22, 4849 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).
13. Class adjudication of this case is superior to individual adjudication because it will conserve judicial resources and is more efficient for class members, particularly those who
4

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 7 of 42
lack the resources to bring their claims individually. See Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610, 632 (3d Cir. 1996). III. Appointment of Plaintiff’s Counsel as Class Counsel
14. The Court appoints Outten & Golden LLP (“O&G”) and Community Legal Services, Inc. (“CLS”) as Class Counsel because they meet all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
15. O&G and CLS did substantial work identifying, investigating, litigating, and settling Plaintiff’s and the class members’ claims, have years of experience prosecuting and settling Title VII class actions, and are well-versed in Title VII and in class action law. See, e.g., Easterling, 265 F.R.D. at 51 n.2; Ralston, 2000 WL 1781590, at *4.
16. The work that O&G and CLS have performed both in litigating and settling this case demonstrates their commitment to the class and to representing the class’s interests. IV. Class Notice
17. The Court approves the proposed Court-Authorized Notice (“Notice”), which is attached as Exhibit C to the Bien Decl., and directs its distribution to the Class.
18. The content of the Notice fully complies with due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 19. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), the notice must provide:
the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must concisely and clearly state in plain, easily understood language: the nature of the action; the definition of the class certified; the class claims, issues, or defenses; that a class member may enter an appearance through counsel if the member so desires; that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion, stating when and how members may elect to be excluded; and the binding effect of a class judgment on class members under Rule 23(c)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
5

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 8 of 42

20. The Notice satisfies each of these requirements and adequately puts class

members on notice of the proposed settlement. See, e.g., In re Rent-Way Sec. Litig., 305 F.

Supp. 2d 491, 511 (W.D. Pa. 2003) (approving class notice that “advised class members of the

time and date of the hearing, apprised them of their opportunity to be heard at that time,

informed them generally about the litigation and the proposed Settlement, and invited them to

contact [the administrator] with any questions they might have concerning the proposed

Settlement”).

21. The Court also approves the form of the proposed Claim Form, which is attached

as Exhibit D to the Bien Decl.

V. Class Action Settlement Procedure

22. The Court hereby approves the following schedule for final resolution of this

matter:

a. Within 5 days of the date of this Order, Defendants will provide the claims administrator with a list, in electronic form, of the following for all class members: (1) last known address, (2) last known telephone number, (3) date on which Defendants received their application for employment, and (4) information regarding felony criminal history, if such information exists in Defendants’ records (“Class List”);

b. The claims administrator will mail the Settlement Notice and Claim Form to class members within 10 days after receiving the Class List;

c. Class members will have 30 days after the date the Settlement Notice is mailed to opt out of or object to the settlement;

d. Class members will have 60 days to return a Claim Form after the date the Settlement Notice is mailed;

e. Plaintiff will file a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement no later than 15 calendar days before the Fairness Hearing;

f.

The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on _____________________

at ______ a.m./p.m. at the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106;

6

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 9 of 42 g. The claims administrator will disburse settlement awards to class members, Class Counsel’s Court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, and Plaintiff’s service award within 5 days of the Effective Date of the settlement; and h. The parties shall abide by all other terms of the Settlement Agreement.
It is so ORDERED this ___ day of ___________, 2012. _____________________________________ Honorable J. Curtis Joyner United States District Judge
7

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 10 of 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLASS ACTION

JEFFREY MAYER, individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

10-CV-1939 (JCJ)

Plaintiff,

v.

DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, and C&S ACQUISITION, INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPOINTMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL AS CLASS COUNSEL, AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
PROCEDURE

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 11 of 42
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 1
I. Litigation................................................................................................................. 1 II. Discovery and Jurisdictional Motion Practice ........................................................ 2 III. Mediation ................................................................................................................ 3 IV. The Settlement Class............................................................................................... 4
SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS ............................................................................ 4 I. Prospective Relief ................................................................................................... 4 II. The Settlement Fund ............................................................................................... 5 III. Release .................................................................................................................... 6 IV. The Claims Process................................................................................................. 6 V. Allocation Formula ................................................................................................. 7 VI. The Opt Out and Objection Procedure.................................................................... 8 VII. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs ...................................................................................... 8 VIII. Service Award......................................................................................................... 9 IX. Settlement Claims Administrator............................................................................ 9
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE ...................................................................... 10 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 12
I. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Is Appropriate. ...................................... 12 A. The Parties Participated in Arm’s-Length Negotiations ........................... 12 B. The Parties Engaged in Extensive Discovery Before Agreeing to Resolve the Case ................................................................................................... 13 C. Plaintiff’s Counsel Is Experienced in Complex Title VII Litigation ........ 14 D. After Notice Issues, the Court Will Be in a Better Position to Weigh the Reaction of the Class .............................................................................. 14
i

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 12 of 42 II. Conditional Certification of the Rule 23 Class Is Appropriate............................. 14
A. Plaintiff Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(a) ....................................... 16 1. Numerosity........................................................................................... 16 2. Commonality........................................................................................ 16 3. Typicality ............................................................................................. 18 4. Adequacy ............................................................................................. 19
B. Certification Is Proper Under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3)............................ 20 1. Common issues predominate ............................................................... 21 2. A class action is a superior method of adjudication ............................ 22
III. Plaintiff’s Counsel Should Be Appointed as Class Counsel................................. 23 IV. The Proposed Class Notice Is Appropriate. .......................................................... 24 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 25
ii

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 13 of 42

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997)...............................................................................................14, 19, 21, 22

Bonett v. Educ. Debt Servs., No. 01-6528, 2003 WL 21658267 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 2003)...............................................13, 21

Cichonski v. Am. Inventors Corp., No. 95 Civ. 04079, 1995 WL 657107 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 1995)...............................................18

Duling v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 267 F.R.D. 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ...................................................................................14, 19, 23

E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395 (1977).................................................................................................................19

Easterling v. Conn. Dep’t of Corr., 08 Civ. 826, 2011 WL 5864829 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2011) ....................................................21

Easterling v. Conn. Dep’t of Corr., 265 F.R.D. 45 (D. Conn. 2010)..........................................................................................19, 23

Eisenberg v. Gannon, 766 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1985).....................................................................................................18

In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995).................................................................................................12, 16

Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982).................................................................................................................16

Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610 (3d Cir. 1996).......................................................................................................22

Godshall v. Franklin Mint Co., No. 01-CV-6539, 2004 WL 2745890 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2004)..................................................9

In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., No. MDL 1663, 2007 WL 2589950 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2007) ....................................................15

In re Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Fin. Consultant Litig., No. 06-3202, 2009 WL 2137224 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2009) .......................................................9

Jones v. Commerce Bancorp Inc., C.A. No. 05-5600, 2007 WL 2085357 (D.N.J. July 16, 2007) ....................................12, 16, 18 iii

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 14 of 42
Lanning v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 176 F.R.D. 132 (E.D. Pa. 1997).........................................................................................17, 18
In re LifeUSA Holding, Inc., 242 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................21
Maldonado v. Houstoun, 177 F.R.D. 311 (E.D. Pa. 1997)...................................................................................14, 19, 24
In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006).....................................................................................................22
O’Keefe v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 214 F.R.D. 266 (E.D. Pa. 2003)...............................................................................................13
Osgood v. Harrah’s Entm’t, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 115 (D.N.J. 2001)..................................................................................................20
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998)...................................................................................14, 17, 19, 21
Ralston v. Zats, No. 94 Civ. 3723, 2000 WL 1781590 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2000).........................................19, 23
Reibstein v. Rite Aid Corp., 761 F. Supp. 2d 241 (E.D. Pa. 2011) .......................................................................................13
Seidman v. Am. Mobile Sys., Inc., 157 F.R.D. 354 (E.D. Pa. 1994)...............................................................................................18
Smith v. Prof'l Billing & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 06-4453, 2007 WL 4191749 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2007) .......................................................12
Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220 (3d. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................................17
United States v. City of New York, 276 F.R.D. 22 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ...............................................................................................22
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) .......................................................................................................17, 20
In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004).....................................................................................................13
Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................................22
iv

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 15 of 42 Webb v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
78 F.R.D. 645 (E.D. Pa. 1978)...........................................................................................17, 18 Westerfield v. Wash. Mut. Bank,
No. 06 Civ. 2817, 2009 WL 6490084 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009)......................................14, 19 OTHER AUTHORITIES Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, 4 Newberg on Class Actions (4th ed. 2002) .............10, 16, 20 Manual for Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2004)..............................................................................15 The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Policy Statement on the
Issue of Conviction Records under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/convict1.html (last visited Jan. 17, 2012). ...........................5
v

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 16 of 42
INTRODUCTION Subject to Court approval, Plaintiff, on behalf of the proposed class, has settled this Title VII class action for $475,000 and meaningful prospective relief. The settlement resolves Plaintiff’s claims on a class-wide basis and satisfies all of the criteria for preliminary settlement approval under federal law. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) grant preliminary approval of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Rachel Bien (“Bien Decl.”);1 (2) conditionally certify the proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (3) appoint Outten & Golden LLP and Community Legal Services, Inc. as Class Counsel (“Class Counsel”); and (4) approve the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit and Fairness Hearing (“Settlement Notice”), attached as Exhibit C to the Bien Decl., and the Claim Form, attached as Exhibit D to the Bien Decl., and direct their distribution.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Litigation
Plaintiff Jeffrey Mayer (“Plaintiff”) filed a Class Action Complaint on April 30, 2010, and a First Amended Class Action Complaint on July 23, 2010, asserting a disparate impact claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) on behalf of a class of African American and Latino job applicants. Bien Decl. Ex. A (Am. Compl.). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants’ policy of denying placements to truck driver applicants with criminal histories had a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos in violation of Title VII. Defendants’ policy

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all exhibits are attached to the Bien Decl.

1

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 17 of 42
barred all applicants with felonies within the last ten years, as well as all felonies related to violence or drugs, no matter the time since the conviction. Bien Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.
Plaintiff applied for an entry-level truck driver job by filling out an online application on Defendants’ website. Ex. A (Am. Compl.) ¶ 39. During a preliminary telephone interview, Plaintiff was told that his application would not be considered because of a prior felony conviction. Id. ¶ 53. II. Discovery and Jurisdictional Motion Practice
The parties engaged in substantial formal and informal discovery before agreeing to resolve this case. On July 12, 2010, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them, that venue was improper, and that they could not be held liable, as an employment agency, under Title VII. Bien Decl. ¶ 17. In response to the motion, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on July 23, 2010, which incorporated additional jurisdictional facts. Ex. A (Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 19-30. On July 20, 2010, the Court “so ordered” the parties’ stipulation providing for a period of jurisdictional discovery and extending the time for Plaintiff to oppose the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 16.
Before Plaintiff filed his opposition, the parties sought a stay of litigation in order to engage in settlement discussions. Bien Decl. ¶ 20. The Court granted a sixty-day stay on August 13, 2010, followed by another thirty-day stay on October 8, 2010. Id. ¶ 21. The Court then agreed to stay litigation until January 21, 2011, so that the parties could continue informal discovery and attempts at negotiation. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. During their negotiations, in response to Plaintiff’s requests, Defendants produced documents related to the claims, including the criminal background hiring policy, data on the numbers of rejected applicants with criminal histories and the nature of their crimes, and correspondence with the two trucking companies for which
2

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 18 of 42
Defendants recruited applicants, USA Truck, Inc. (“USA”) and P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. (“PAM”), related to the development and application of the criminal background policy. Id. ¶ 28. Defendants also provided information to Plaintiff regarding the role of USA and PAM in devising the criminal background policy and informed them that, after the lawsuit was filed, USA and PAM took over the role of applying the policy to applicants. Id. ¶ 20.
The parties were not able to reach a resolution and returned to litigation at the end of January 2011. Id. ¶ 22. On February 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to join USA and PAM as additional Defendants. ECF No. 28. Defendants opposed the motion and re-filed their motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint. ECF No. 29. On March 9, 2011, Plaintiff requested that the Court grant him a period of discovery in order to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and support his motion for joinder. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request on April 1, 2011. ECF Nos. 36-37.
Plaintiff propounded interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admissions on Defendants regarding their jurisdictional contacts with Pennsylvania and deposed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness. Bien Decl. ¶ 26. Plaintiff also subpoenaed witnesses from USA and PAM to appear for depositions and to produce documents regarding their knowledge of Plaintiff’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge. Id. Defendants propounded document requests on Plaintiff and deposed him. Id. III. Mediation
On July 8, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ request for a stay of litigation so that they could revive settlement negotiations. ECF No. 43. In advance of the mediation, at Plaintiff’s request, Defendants produced information that would allow Plaintiff to generate an estimate of damages, including updated data on the number of rejected applicants with criminal
3

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 19 of 42
backgrounds, data on the numbers of applicants who graduate from truck driver training, and expected compensation and turnover rates at USA and PAM. Bien Decl. ¶ 31. Plaintiff hired a labor economist, Dr. Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D., to assist him to generate a damages model, which he shared with Defendants in advance of the parties’ mediation. Id. ¶ 32. On October 4, 2011, the parties participated in a 12-hour mediation with an experienced employment law mediator, Alfred G. Feliu, Esq. Id. ¶ 33. The parties reached agreement on the material terms of a settlement, including the monetary amount, at the conclusion of the mediation. Id. ¶ 34. The parties then negotiated a formal settlement agreement incorporating all terms, which all parties have signed. Id. ¶ 35. IV. The Settlement Class
The proposed settlement class consists of all Latino and African American individuals who submitted applications to Defendants for a placement with one of the trucking companies for which Defendants recruit inexperienced truck drivers and whom Defendants rejected based on their criminal background between January 24, 2009 and September 30, 2010. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 1.3. Defendants have represented that approximately 5,516 applicants were rejected based on their criminal background during the class period. Bien Decl. ¶ 37.
SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS I. Prospective Relief
As a condition of settlement, Defendants agreed to modify the criminal background hiring policy that they apply to applicants. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 3.6(A). Under the revised policy, Defendants cannot bar applicants with felonies that are more than 10 years old or misdemeanors that are more than 5 years old, unless they are for certain specific crimes, which are identified in Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement. Id. Ex. B. For those specifically
4

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 20 of 42
designated crimes, as well as for all felony and misdemeanor convictions that are less than 10 years old or less than 5 years old, respectively, Defendants must consider, in addition to the criminal history, the following mitigating factors:
a. The nature and gravity of the conviction(s); b. Whether there is a direct relationship between the conviction(s) and the specific
duties and responsibilities of the job sought such that the conviction is substantially likely to bear on the applicant’s suitability for the job; c. Any information produced by the applicant in regard to his rehabilitation and good conduct since the date of the conviction(s); d. The age of the applicant at the time of the occurrence of the conviction(s); e. The length of time that has passed since the date of the conviction(s); and f. The nature of the job held or sought. The Equal Employment Opportunity Agency has endorsed the above factors in guidance to employers as a means to eliminate the discriminatory effects of hiring policies that prohibit individuals with criminal records from obtaining employment. See The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Policy Statement on the Issue of Conviction Records under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/ docs/convict1.html (last visited Jan. 17, 2012). II. The Settlement Fund The Settlement Agreement creates a fund of $475,000 (“the Fund”). Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 1.21. The Fund covers class members’ awards, Court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, a Court-approved service payment to Plaintiff, the claims administrator’s fees, and any fees associated with distributing and liquidating the settlement payment. Other than the mediator’s fees, Defendants will not be required to pay more than $475,000. Id. ¶ 3.1(A). Defendants will deposit the Fund into an escrow account within 21 days of the Court’s Order Granting Preliminary Approval. Id. ¶ 3.1(B). None of the Fund will revert to Defendants. Id. ¶ 3.4(F).
5

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 21 of 42
III. Release The Settlement Agreement provides that every class member who does not timely opt out
of the settlement will release Defendants from the claims that were brought in the litigation and all state and municipal claims based on the same facts and circumstances. Id. ¶ 3.7(A). IV. The Claims Process
The settlement provides for a claims process under which class members will have 60 days to return a two-page claim form in order to be eligible to obtain a monetary recovery. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 2.7(A). The claim form asks class members to self-identify by race and ethnicity, answer questions regarding the nature of their criminal history, and provide information regarding whether they mitigated their damages by securing alternative employment after being rejected by Defendants. Ex. D (Claim Form). Class members will be eligible to share in the monetary recovery if they: (1) self-identify as Latino or African American, and (2) were not convicted of a crime within the last 10 years, or (3) were convicted of a crime within the last 10 years, but not for: (a) driving under the influence within the last 5 years, (b) a felony involving use of a motor vehicle, (c) a felony involving death or serious bodily injury to another person, or (d) felony theft, robbery, or fraud. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 3.4(C).
The claims administrator will be responsible for reviewing claim forms that class members return for completeness and eligibility. Id. ¶ 2.1. If a class member submits an incomplete claim form, the claims administrator will send a letter to the class member explaining the reason that the submitted Claim Form is incomplete and giving the class member thirty days to cure the omission. Id. Class Counsel may follow up with the class member to try and assist him or her in completing the information. Id.
6

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 22 of 42
The claims administrator will cross-check the criminal history information self-reported in the Claim Form with the information contained in Defendants’ records. Id. ¶ 2.7(C). Where a discrepancy is found between the self-reported information and that which exists in Defendants’ records, the claims administrator will inform Class Counsel within 2 business days of identifying the discrepancy. Id. Class Counsel may then attempt to verify the information, by interviewing the claimant and/or requesting that the claimant produce evidence supporting the information he or she self-reported. Id. Class Counsel will then determine whether the claimant is approved as a class member. Id.
Class Counsel may challenge a claimant’s eligibility to recover where they have a good faith belief that a claimant’s submission may be invalid. Id. ¶ 2.7(E). Class Counsel also retain the right to challenge the claims administrator’s determinations regarding approval or denial of each Claim Form and the amount the claims administrator proposes to pay to each Claimant. Id. V. Allocation Formula
Under the settlement agreement, each claimant whom the claims administrator determines is eligible for a payment will earn 1 point for each week for which he or she was not employed between January 24, 2009 and the present. Id. ¶ 3.4(D). To calculate each approved claimant’s proportionate share, the claims administrator will: (a) add all points for all approved claimants together; (b) divide the number of points for each approved claimant by the total number to obtain each approved claimant’s portion; and (c) multiply each approved claimant’s portion by the net settlement fund to determine each approved claimant’s award. Id.
If sufficient funds remain in the escrow account after the payments described above have been distributed to make a second distribution, the claims administrator will redistribute the
7

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 23 of 42
money among approved claimants in pro-rata payments based on the same formula used for the initial distribution. Id. ¶ 3.4(F). VI. The Opt Out and Objection Procedure
The settlement provides that class members may request exclusion from the class by opting out. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 2.6(A). To do so, class members must mail a written, signed statement to the claims administrator that he or she is opting out of the monetary portion of the settlement (“Opt-Out Statement”). Id. Opt-Out Statements must be mailed 30 days after the claims administrator mails the Notice. Id. There will be additional mailings for class members whose notices are returned undeliverable by the post office, assuming updated addresses can be found. Id. ¶ 2.6(A).
The settlement also provides that class members may present objections to the proposed settlement at the Fairness Hearing, if they first submit their objection in writing. Id. ¶ 2.8(A). Objectors may appear at the Fairness Hearing, either in person or through counsel, but need not appear in order to make an objection. Id. ¶ 2.8(A) & (B). An objector who wishes to appear at the Fairness Hearing must state his or her intention to do so at the time of submitting written objections. Id. ¶ 2.8(B). Any class member who has requested exclusion may not submit objections to the settlement. Id. VII. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Plaintiff’s counsel will seek one-third of the settlement fund as attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of their reasonable costs of no more than $10,000. Id. ¶ 3.2(A). The Court need not rule on fees and costs now. Plaintiff’s counsel will file a motion for approval of fees and costs with their motion for final approval of the settlement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) & 54(d)(2).
8

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 24 of 42
VIII. Service Award In addition to his individual award under the allocation formula, and subject to Court
approval, Plaintiff will seek an additional payment of $15,000 in recognition of the services he rendered to the class. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 3.3. His services included, but were not limited to, informing counsel of the facts initially and as the case progressed, responding to discovery requests, sitting for a deposition, assisting counsel to prepare for the mediation, attending the mediation, and reviewing and commenting on the terms of the settlement. Bien Decl. ¶ 41. Plaintiff will move for Court approval of his service award simultaneously with his motion for final approval of the settlement. See In re Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Fin. Consultant Litig., No. 06 Civ. 3202, 2009 WL 2137224, at *12 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2009) (approving service awards of $20,000 each where the named plaintiffs were deposed, responded to discovery requests, and assisted counsel to understand the relevant facts); Godshall v. Franklin Mint Co., No. 01 Civ. 6539, 2004 WL 2745890, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2004) (awarding $20,000 each to two named plaintiffs in employment class action). IX. Settlement Claims Administrator
Plaintiff has retained Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, an experienced class action claims administrator to administer the settlement. Bien Decl. ¶ 42. The claims administrator will be responsible for mailing the settlement notice and claims form to class members, reviewing claim forms and determining which class members are eligible to participate in the settlement, calculating each class member’s individual settlement award, cutting the settlement checks, and mailing them to class members. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 2.1.
9

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 25 of 42

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE

Courts have established a defined procedure and specific criteria for settlement approval

in class action settlements that include three distinct steps:

1.

Preliminary approval of the proposed settlement after submission to the court of a

written motion for preliminary approval and certification of the settlement class;

2. Dissemination of mailed and/or published notice of settlement to all affected class

members; and

3. A final settlement approval hearing at which class members may be heard

regarding the settlement, and at which argument concerning the fairness, adequacy, and

reasonableness of the settlement may be presented. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); see also Herbert

B. Newberg & Alba Conte, 4 Newberg on Class Actions (“Newberg”) §§ 11:22 et seq. (4th ed.

2002). This process safeguards class members’ procedural due process rights and enables the

Court to fulfill its role as the guardian of class interests. With this motion, Plaintiff requests that

the Court take the first step – granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement,

conditionally certifying the settlement class, appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel, and

approving the Proposed Notice and Claim Form and authorizing the claims administrator to send

them.

Plaintiff respectfully submits the following proposed schedule for final resolution of this

matter for the Court’s consideration and approval:

1. If the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement, within 5 days of the

date of the Court’s order, Defendants will provide the claims administrator with a list, in

electronic form, of the following for all class members: (1) last known address, (2) last known

telephone number, (3) date on which Defendants received their application for employment, and

10

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 26 of 42
(4) information regarding felony criminal history, if such information exists in Defendants’ records. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 1.5.
2. The claims administrator will mail the Settlement Notice and Claim Form to class members within 10 days after receiving the class list. Id. ¶ 2.5(B).
3. Class members will have 30 days after the date the Settlement Notice is mailed to opt out of or object to the settlement (“Opt-Out Period”). Id. ¶ 2.6(A). Class members will have 60 days to return a Claim Form after the date the Settlement Notice is mailed. Id. ¶ 2.7(A).
4. Plaintiff will file a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement no later than 15 calendar days before the Fairness Hearing. Id. ¶ 2.9.
5. After the Fairness Hearing, if the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, the Court will issue an Order Granting Final Approval. If no party seeks a rehearing, reconsideration, or appeal of the Court’s Final Order and Judgment, the effective date of the settlement will be 31 days after the Court enters its Order Granting Final Approval (“Effective Date”). Id. ¶ 1.11(B)(1).
6. If a party seeks rehearing, reconsideration, or appeal of the Court’s Final Order and Judgment, the Effective Date of Settlement shall be the day after all avenues of rehearing, reconsideration, and appellate review have been exhausted and no further rehearing reconsideration or appellate review is permitted, and the time for seeking such review has expired. Id. ¶ 1.11(B)(2).
7. The claims administrator will disburse settlement awards to class members, Class Counsel’s Court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, and Plaintiff’s service award within 5 days of the Effective Date of the settlement. Id. ¶ 3.1(C).
11

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 27 of 42
ARGUMENT I. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Is Appropriate.
“Judicial review of a proposed class action settlement is a two-step process: preliminary fairness approval and a subsequent fairness hearing.” Smith v. Prof'l Billing & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 06-4453, 2007 WL 4191749, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2007) (citing Jones, 2007 WL 2085357, at *2). The first step requires that a court make a preliminary evaluation of the fairness of the settlement before notice is permitted to issue to class members. Id.
There is a presumption of fairness when the court determines that: “(1) the negotiations occurred at arm’s length; (2) there was sufficient discovery; (3) the proponents of the settlement are experienced in similar litigation; and (4) only a small fraction of the class objected.” In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 785 (3d Cir. 1995) (internal citation omitted). Overall, preliminary approval is granted “unless a proposed settlement is obviously deficient.” Jones, 2007 WL 2085357, at *2. The proposed settlement here meets all of the requirements for preliminary approval.
A. The Parties Participated in Arm’s-Length Negotiations. Plaintiff satisfies the first factor because the settlement was the product of arm’s-length negotiations between counsel well-versed in Title VII and class action law with the assistance of a third-party private mediator. The parties attended a day-long mediation, during which they advocated their respective views and shared detailed damages calculations. Bien Decl. ¶ 33. At the conclusion of the mediation, the parties agreed to the material terms of the settlement, which they then reduced to a detailed settlement agreement. Id. ¶¶ 34-35.
12

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 28 of 42
B. The Parties Engaged in Extensive Discovery Before Agreeing to Resolve the Case.
The parties completed enough discovery to recommend settlement. The pertinent question is “whether counsel had an adequate appreciation of the merits of the case before negotiating.” In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516, 537 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 235 (3d Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The discovery here meets this standard. Plaintiff obtained substantial amounts of information, including the criminal background policy, documents reflecting its application, and data regarding the number of applicants who were rejected pursuant to the policy, as well as jurisdictional discovery regarding Defendants’ contacts with Pennsylvania. Bien Decl. ¶¶ 26, 28. Plaintiff also performed detailed damages calculations based on data that Defendants provided, including the proportion of applicants likely to be hired, their potential pay, and turnover rates at USA and PAM. Id. ¶ 31. Defendants also deposed Plaintiff, and Plaintiff took the depositions of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness and representatives of USA and PAM. Id. ¶ 26.
Based on this discovery, the parties were well-equipped to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their claims and defenses. See Reibstein v. Rite Aid Corp., 761 F. Supp. 2d 241, 252 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (approving settlement where the parties had completed document production and answered interrogatories because, “[w]ith this information in hand, all parties were able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case”); O’Keefe v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 214 F.R.D. 266, 300 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (“This factor weighs in favor of settlement because the parties were fully aware of the facts and their positions prior to beginning negotiations”); Bonett v. Educ. Debt Servs., No. 01-6528, 2003 WL 21658267, at *6 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 2003) (settlement favored where “[t]he parties arrived at an arms-length settlement . . . [with] a clear view of the
13

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 29 of 42
strengths and weaknesses of their case”) (internal citations omitted). This factor also weighs in favor of preliminary approval.
C. Plaintiff’s Counsel Is Experienced in Complex Title VII Litigation. Plaintiff’s attorneys are experienced employment class action litigators. Courts have routinely designated them as class counsel in employment class actions and recognized their expertise in this area. See Duling v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 267 F.R.D. 86, 99 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (designating Outten & Golden LLP as class counsel and finding them “experienced and well qualified to conduct the instant [Title VII class action] litigation”); Westerfield v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. 06 Civ. 2817, 2009 WL 6490084, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009) (“[Outten & Golden LLP]’s lawyers have substantial experience prosecuting and settling employment class actions”); Maldonado v. Houstoun, 177 F.R.D. 311, 322 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (finding that Community Legal Services has “extensive experience in complex litigation generally and in class actions in particular”). This factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval. D. After Notice Issues, the Court Will Be in a Better Position to Weigh the
Reaction of the Class. The Court will be in a better position to weigh the reaction of the class after notice issues and class members are given an opportunity to opt out or object. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 148 F.3d 283, 318 (3d Cir. 1998) (This factor “attempts to gauge whether members of the class support the settlement”). Plaintiff has demonstrated his approval of the settlement by signing the settlement agreement. II. Conditional Certification of the Rule 23 Class Is Appropriate. After doing a preliminary evaluation of the fairness of the settlement, the court must determine if conditional certification of the proposed class is appropriate. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 621-22 (1997). At this stage, the court need only make a preliminary
14

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 30 of 42
determination that the proposed class satisfies the criteria for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., No. 1663, 2007 WL 2589950, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2007), aff'd, 579 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2009); Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.633 (4th ed. 2004) (“The judge should make a preliminary determination that the proposed class satisfies the criteria set out in Rule 23(a) and at least one of the subsections of Rule 23(b)”).
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court conditionally certify the following class for purposes of effectuating the settlement:
All Latino and African American individuals who submitted applications to Defendants for a placement with one of the trucking companies for which Defendants recruit inexperienced truck drivers and whom Defendants rejected based on their criminal background between January 24, 2009 and September 30, 2010. Under Rule 23, a class action may be maintained if all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met, as well as one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). Rule 23(a) requires that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Rule 23(b)(2) requires the Court to find that the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(3) requires the Court to find that: (1) questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; and that (2) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
15

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 31 of 42
Conditional settlement approval, class certification, and appointment of Class Counsel have practical purposes, including avoiding the costs of litigating class status while facilitating a global settlement, ensuring that all class members are notified of the terms of the proposed settlement, and setting the date and time of the final approval hearing. See In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d at 778, 784. Defendants do not oppose conditional certification for settlement purposes. See Newberg § 11.27 (“When the court has not yet entered a formal order determining that the action may be maintained as a class action, the parties may stipulate that it be maintained as a class action for the purpose of settlement only.”).
A. Plaintiff Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(a). 1. Numerosity
Numerosity is satisfied when the class is “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Courts in the Third Circuit typically find that “classes of close to one hundred members are sufficient.” Jones, 2007 WL 2085357, at *3 (citing Eisenberg v. Gannon, 766 F.2d 770, 785-86 (3d Cir. 1985)). Here, Plaintiff easily satisfies the numerosity requirement because there are potentially more than 5,500 class members. Bien Decl. ¶ 37.
2. Commonality The proposed class also satisfies the commonality requirement, the purpose of which is to test “whether the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.” Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n.13 (1982). To demonstrate commonality, Plaintiff must show that “the named plaintiff[] share[s] at least one question of fact or law with the grievances of the
16

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 32 of 42
prospective class.” Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 227 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56 (3d Cir.1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted). All class members need not have identical claims or claims arising from the same factual scenario. See In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 310. Indeed, “factual differences among the claims of the putative class members do not defeat certification.” Id. (quoting Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 56) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, class members’ claims share common facts and are premised on a common legal theory. Each class member applied for an entry-level over-the-road truck driver position and was rejected based on Defendants’ criminal background hiring policy. Whether Defendants’ policy had a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos or was justified by business necessity are two legal questions that all class members share. See Lanning v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 176 F.R.D. 132, 150-51 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (commonality satisfied in a disparate impact Title VII case challenging the use of a physical fitness test where “[t]he legality of SEPTA’s conduct is central to the claims of all the plaintiffs and prospective class members”); Webb v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.R.D. 645, 652 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (commonality satisfied where all class members were allegedly denied positions based on race); cf. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2553 (2011) (holding that, “if the employer used a biased testing procedure to evaluate both applicants for employment and incumbent employees, a class action on behalf of every applicant or employee who might have been prejudiced by the test clearly would satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a)” ) (citing Falcon, 457 U.S. at 159 n.15).
17

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 33 of 42
3. Typicality Plaintiff satisfies the typicality requirement. Typicality is satisfied where each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s liability. See Jones, 2007 WL 2085357, at *3. The central inquiry is whether “the named plaintiff’s individual circumstances are markedly different or . . . the legal theory upon which the claims are based differs from that . . . of other class members . . . .” Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 786 (3d Cir. 1985) (quoting Weiss v. York Hosp., 745 F.2d 786, 809 n.36 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1060 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The requirement is met where “the plaintiff and each member of the represented group have an interest in prevailing on similar legal claims.” Seidman v. Am. Mobile Sys., Inc., 157 F.R.D. 354, 360 (E.D. Pa. 1994); see also Cichonski v. Am. Inventors Corp., No. 95 Civ. 04079, 1995 WL 657107, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 1995) (explaining that typicality seeks “to ascertain that the interests of the class representative are closely aligned with those of the class, so as to ensure fair representation of absentee class members”). Here, Plaintiff’s and the class members’ claims arise from the same course of events – they all applied for entry-level truck driver placements and were denied those placements as a result of Defendants’ criminal background hiring policy. They also make the same legal arguments in support of their claims – that Defendants’ criminal background policy had a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos and was not justified by business necessity. See Lanning, 176 F.R.D. at 151 (typicality satisfied in a disparate impact Title VII case challenging the use of a physical fitness test because “[t]he legal claims of the named plaintiffs and those of the proposed class members are identical” and “the factual circumstances from which the claims of the named plaintiffs and proposed class members arose are strikingly
18

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 34 of 42
similar”); Webb, 78 F.R.D. at 652 (typicality satisfied where plaintiffs were all subject to the same discriminatory personnel policies).
4. Adequacy Satisfaction of the adequacy requirement involves a two-part inquiry: the qualifications of class counsel and the interests of the named plaintiff. See In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 312. Courts have consistently found Plaintiff’s counsel to be adequate as Class Counsel. See Easterling v. Conn. Dept. of Corr., 265 F.R.D. 45, 51 n.2 (D. Conn. 2010) (finding Outten & Golden LLP to “be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation” in a Title VII disparate impact class action) (internal quotation marks omitted), modified on other grounds by No. 08 Civ. 826, 2011 WL 5864829 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2011); Duling, 267 F.R.D. at 99 (designating Outten & Golden LLP as class counsel and finding them “experienced and well qualified to conduct the instant [Title VII class action] litigation”); Westerfield, 2009 WL 6490084, at *3 (“[Outten & Golden LLP]’s lawyers have substantial experience prosecuting and settling employment class actions”); Ralston v. Zats, No. 94 Civ. 3723, 2000 WL 1781590, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2000) (appointing Community Legal Services as class counsel and describing them as “well-respected, with experience in class action litigation”); Maldonado, 177 F.R.D. at 322 (appointing Community Legal Services as class counsel and observing that “[t]here is no doubt that plaintiffs’ attorneys are well-qualified to conduct the proposed [class action] litigation”). Plaintiff is also an adequate representative of the class. He shares the class’s interest in establishing the unlawfulness of Defendants’ criminal background policy and obtaining equitable and injunctive relief. See Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 625 (“The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to
19

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 35 of 42
represent.”); E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977) (“[A] class representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members”) (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 216 (1974)).
B. Certification Is Proper Under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). In addition to satisfying the 23(a) requirements, Plaintiff meets the requirements under 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), which permits certification where the defendant has “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3), which provides that a class may be certified where common issues predominate over individual issues and the class mechanism is superior to individual proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). See Osgood v. Harrah’s Entm’t, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 115, 129-30 (D.N.J. 2001) (approving a “hybrid” or “bifurcated” procedure, under which the court certifies a Rule 23(b)(2) class for that portion of the case addressing injunctive relief and a Rule 23(b)(3) class for the portion of the case addressing damages) (citing Lemon v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local No. 139, AFL-CIO, 216 F.3d 577, 581 (7th Cir. 2000)); Newberg § 4.14 (discussing the court’s authority in a Title VII action to certify hybrid claims under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3)). Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants applied the criminal background policy uniformly to all members of the class and thus the class as a whole shares the same interest in obtaining the injunctive relief provided by the settlement – prospective changes to the policy. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 3.6 and Ex. B (Revised
20

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 36 of 42
Hiring Criteria). See Wal-Mart Stores, 131 S. Ct. at 2557 (“The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Rule 23(b)(3) inquiry examines “whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 623. Here, Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) because common issues predominate over individual ones and adjudication on a classwide basis is superior to individual proceedings. See In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 313-14.
1. Common issues predominate Predominance ensures that a “class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” In re LifeUSA Holding, Inc., 242 F.3d 136, 144 (3d Cir. 2001). Courts in this district have held that “[p]redominance is readily satisfied, where the core claims asserted by each Class member all arise out of the same transaction or occurrence . . . .” Bonett v. Educ. Debt Servs., Inc., No. 01 Civ. 6528, 2003 WL 21658267, at *4 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 2003). Here, the core claim is that Defendants’ criminal background policy disparately affected African Americans and Latinos and could not be justified by business necessity. Moreover, the claims of the class stem from the same transaction or occurrence – Defendants’ application of the policy to deny them employment as entry-level over-the-road truck drivers. The common issues – whether the policy caused a disparate impact, whether business necessity justified the policy, whether a less discriminatory policy existed, and the aggregate amount of damages owed to the class – predominate over any individualized questions. See Easterling v. Conn. Dep’t of Corr., No. 08 Civ. 826, 2011 WL 5864829, at *8 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2011) (holding that individual
21

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 37 of 42
questions regarding class member status, qualifications, and mitigation were less substantial than the issues that were subject to generalized proof, including whether the challenged physical fitness test had a disparate impact on female applicants; whether that impact was justified by business necessity; the total amount of back pay, the rate at which those women would have been paid; the total number of priority hiring slots that should be awarded, if any; and the total amount of front pay); United States v. City of New York, 276 F.R.D. 22, 48-49 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding that common issues, including the aggregate amount of relief available and the criteria used to establish who is eligible to receive retroactive seniority and priority hiring relief, predominated in a disparate impact case challenging a written entrance examination, despite individual questions regarding claimants’ mitigation efforts). To the extent that any individualized questions exist, including mitigation, they do not predominate over the common issues. Id.
The fact that the settlement will eliminate the need to litigate the common questions does not render them irrelevant to the certification decision. See In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219, 228 (2d Cir. 2006); Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 299 (1st Cir. 2000). Because these questions predominate, this factor weighs in favor of class certification.
2. A class action is a superior method of adjudication The superiority requirement asks the court “to balance, in terms of fairness and efficiency, the merits of a class action against those of ‘alternative available methods’ of adjudication.” Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610, 632 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 757 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 885 (1974)). Class actions are particularly appropriate where the potential recovery for each class member is small. See Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 617 (“The policy at the very core of the class
22

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 38 of 42
action mechanism is to overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.”) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338, 344 (7th Cir. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, a class action is the superior method of adjudication because individual class members – applicants for entry-level truck driver positions – likely do not have the resources to litigate their claims individually, especially given the relatively small damages they could expect to recover. Bien Decl. ¶ 36. Further, there is a strong possibility that class members would never have asserted claims on their own, given that Plaintiff’s legal theory is still relatively novel, and proving it would have required statistical evidence and expert testimony. A class action, on the other hand, alleviates these problems by providing notice to potential claimants of their rights and allowing them to consolidate their resources in a single action. III. Plaintiff’s Counsel Should Be Appointed as Class Counsel.
Outten & Golden LLP and Community Legal Services, Inc. should be appointed as Class Counsel. Rule 23(g), which governs the appointment of class counsel for a certified class, sets forth four criteria that courts must consider in evaluating the adequacy of proposed class counsel: (1) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (2) counsel’s experience in handling class actions and claims of the type asserted in the action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (4) the resources counsel will commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A).
Plaintiff’s counsel meet all relevant criteria. As discussed above, they did substantial work identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and settling the claims; have substantial experience prosecuting and settling Title VII and other employment class actions; are well-versed in Title VII class action law; and are well-qualified to represent the interests of the class. Bien Decl. ¶¶
23

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 39 of 42
4-14; Easterling, 265 F.R.D. at 51 n.2; Duling, 267 F.R.D. at 99; Ralston, 2000 WL 1781590, at *4; Maldonado, 177 F.R.D. at 322. IV. The Proposed Class Notice Is Appropriate.
The contents of the proposed Settlement Notice, which is attached to the Bien Decl. as Exhibit C, fully complies with due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B), the notice must provide:
the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must concisely and clearly state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through counsel if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3). The Settlement Notice satisfies each of these requirements. It also provides information regarding the range of potential settlement awards, the allocation formula, and the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs, and notifies class members of the date, time, and place of the Fairness Hearing and how to object to or exclude oneself from the settlement. This information is adequate to put class members on notice of the proposed settlement and is well within the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B). The Settlement Notice closely adheres to the model forms that the Federal Judicial Center recommends on its website. See http://www.fjc.gov (last visited January 17, 2012). The Settlement Agreement provides that the claims administrator will mail the Settlement Notice to the last known address of each class member within approximately 15 days of the Court’s preliminary approval order. Ex. B (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 2.5(B). The claims administrator will take all reasonable steps to obtain the correct addresses of any class members
24

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 40 of 42

for whom notices are returned as undeliverable. Id. Class members will have 30 days to opt out of or object to the settlement and 60 days to return their claim form. Id. ¶¶ 2.6-2.8. Within five days of the effective date of the settlement, the claims administrator will mail class members their payments. Id. ¶ 3.4(E).
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court preliminarily approve the settlement, conditionally certify the settlement class, appoint Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel, approve the Settlement Notice and Claim Form, and enter the Proposed Order.

Dated:

January 17, 2012 New York, New York

Respectfully submitted, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP By: /s/ Rachel Bien Rachel Bien COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. Janet Ginzberg (Bar # 72152) Brendan Lynch (Bar # 82675) 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-981-3700 OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Adam T. Klein* Samuel R. Miller* Rachel Bien* Sandra E. Pullman* 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: 212-245-1000 *Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed Class
25

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 41 of 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY MAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

CLASS ACTION 10-CV-1939 (JCJ)

v.

DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, and C&S ACQUISITION, INC.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, Rachel Bien, attorney for Plaintiff, Jeffrey Mayer, in the above-captioned matter, hereby declare that on the date listed below, I caused a true and correct copy of Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement, the Declaration of Rachel Bien and its exhibits, and this Declaration to be served upon Defendants’ counsel, Jacqueline K. Gallagher, Jacob M. Sitman, and Colleen M. O’Donnell of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, One Penn Center, 19th Floor, 1617 JFK Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19103, by electronically filing the original aforementioned documents with the Court using the Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) System. Those documents are available for viewing and downloading from the ECF System. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

26

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47 Filed 01/17/12 Page 42 of 42

Dated: New York, New York January 17, 2012

/s/ Rachel Bien Rachel Bien

27

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 63

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLASS ACTION

JEFFREY MAYER, individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

10-CV-1939 (JCJ)

Plaintiff,

v.

DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, and C&S ACQUISITION, INC.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF RACHEL BIEN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPOINTMENT
OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL AS CLASS COUNSEL, AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
PROCEDURE I, Rachel Bien, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Outten & Golden LLP (“O&G”) in New York, New York, which, together with Community Legal Services, Inc. (“CLS”), is Plaintiff’s counsel herein. O&G is a 30+ attorney firm that represents plaintiffs in a wide variety of employment matters, including individual and class action litigation involving wage and hour and discrimination claims, as well as contract and severance negotiations.
2. I have been one of the lawyers primarily responsible for the prosecution of Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of the proposed class in this matter.
3. I make these statements based on personal knowledge and would so testify if called as a witness at trial.

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 63
Counsel’s Background and Experience 4. I received a Juris Doctor degree cum laude from Brooklyn Law School in 2005. I
was admitted to the bar of the State of New York in 2006 and am also admitted to the bars of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. I am a member in good standing of each of these bars.
5. On May 17, 2010, I was admitted pro hac vice to serve as counsel in this case. 6. After serving as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Thomas G. Nelson on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I joined O&G in 2006, where I have exclusively represented plaintiffs in employment litigation and other employee rights matters. 7. I have prosecuted several employment cases that district courts have certified as class actions, including Willix v. HealthFirst, Inc., No. 07 Civ. 1143, 2011 WL 754862 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2011); Campos v. Goode, 10 Civ. 0224, 2010 WL 5508100 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2010); deMunecas v. Bold Food LLC, No. 09 Civ. 00440, 2010 WL 3322580 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2010); Clark v. Ecolab Inc., Nos. 07 Civ. 8623, 04 Civ. 4488, 06 Civ. 5672, 2010 WL 1948198 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2010); McMahon v. Olivier Cheng Catering and Events, LLC, No. 08 Civ. 8713, 2010 WL 2399328 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2010); Khait v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 06 Civ. 6381, 2010 WL 2025106 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2010); O'Dell v. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc., No. 09 Civ. 759, 2009 WL 6583142 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2009); and Reyes v. Buddha-Bar NYC, No. 08 Civ. 02494, 2009 WL 5841177 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2009). 8. I am a member of the American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law Section and the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee. I am also a member of the National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”) and NELA’s New York Chapter. I speak frequently on employment law issues, including class action practice.
2

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 63
9. I worked closely with CLS attorneys Janet Ginzberg and Brendan Lynch throughout the litigation and resolution of this case.
10. Janet Ginzberg received a Juris Doctor degree from Brooklyn Law School in 1993. She is a member in good standing of the Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey bars, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Prior to becoming a Senior Staff Attorney at CLS, Ms. Ginzberg was an attorney at the law firm of Connolly Epstein Chicco Foxman Oxholm & Ewing, practicing in the areas of employment law, commercial litigation, personal injury and intellectual property. From 1995 until 1997, she was an Assistant City Solicitor in the Civil Rights Unit of the Law Department of the City of Philadelphia. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable James T. Giles from 1993 to 1995.
11. Ms. Ginzberg has prosecuted employment law cases that district courts have certified as class actions, including Henderson v. Hireright Solutions, No. 11 Civ. 00558 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2011), and Smith v. Hireright Solutions, No. 11 Civ. 00505 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2011).
12. Brendan Lynch received a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1998. He is a member in good standing of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 2000, Mr. Lynch served as a law clerk for the Honorable Petrese Tucker. From 1998 to 2000, he worked as a Staff Attorney at CLS and returned there in 2001 after his clerkship ended.
13. Mr. Lynch prosecuted Georigi v. Recon Automotive Remanufacturers, No. 07 Civ. 5509, 2009 WL 1312607 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2009), which was certified as a class action.
14. Courts have repeatedly appointed O&G and CLS as class counsel in employment class actions, including Title VII cases. See Easterling v. Connecticut, Dept. of Corr., 265
3

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 4 of 63
F.R.D. 45, 51 n.2 (D. Conn. 2010) (finding Outten & Golden LLP to “be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation” in a Title VII disparate impact class action), modified sub nom. Easterling v. Connecticut Dept. of Corr., No. 3:08 Civ. 826, 2011 WL 5864829 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2011); Duling v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 267 F.R.D. 86, 99 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (appointing Outten & Golden LLP as class counsel and finding them “experienced and well qualified to conduct the instant [Title VII class action] litigation”); Westerfield v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. 06 Civ. 2817, 2009 WL 6490084, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009) (“[Outten & Golden LLP]’s lawyers have substantial experience prosecuting and settling employment class actions”); Ralston v. Zats, No. 94-3723, 2000 WL 1781590, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2000) (appointing Community Legal Services as class counsel and describing them as “well-respected, with experience in class action litigation”); Maldonado v. Houstoun, 177 F.R.D. 311, 322 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (appointing Community Legal Services as class counsel and observing that “[t]here is no doubt that plaintiffs’ attorneys are well-qualified to conduct the proposed [class action] litigation”), aff'd, 157 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 1998). Litigation
15. Plaintiff Jeffrey Mayer (“Plaintiff”) filed a Class Action Complaint on April 30, 2010, asserting a disparate impact claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) on behalf of a class of African American and Latino job applicants.
16. Defendants’ criminal background hiring policy barred all applicants with felonies within the last ten years, as well as all felonies related to violence or drugs, no matter the time since the conviction.
17. On July 12, 2010, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them, that venue was improper, and that they
4

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 5 of 63
could not be held liable, as an employment agency, under Title VII. 18. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on July 23, 2010, which
incorporated additional jurisdictional facts. A true and correct copy of the First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
19. On July 20, 2010, the Court “so ordered” the parties’ stipulation providing for a period of jurisdictional discovery and extending the time for Plaintiff to oppose the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 16.
20. Before Plaintiff filed his opposition, the parties sought a stay of litigation in order to engage in settlement discussions.
21. The Court granted a sixty-day stay on August 13, 2010, followed by two additional stays through January 21, 2011.
22. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to reach agreement, and returned to litigation at the end of January 2011.
23. On February 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to join USA Truck, Inc. (“USA”) and P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. (“PAM”) as additional Defendants.
24. Defendants opposed the motion and re-filed their motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint.
25. On March 9, 2011, Plaintiff requested that the Court grant him a period of discovery in order to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and support his motion for joinder. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request on April 1, 2011.
26. Plaintiff propounded interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admissions on Defendants regarding their contacts with Pennsylvania and deposed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness. Plaintiff subpoenaed witnesses from USA and PAM to appear for
5

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 6 of 63
depositions and to produce documents regarding their knowledge of Plaintiff’s EEOC charge. Defendants propounded document requests on Plaintiff and deposed him. Informal Discovery
27. The parties engaged in substantial formal and informal discovery before agreeing to resolve this case.
28. During their settlement negotiations, in response to Plaintiff’s requests, Defendants produced documents related to the claims, including the criminal background hiring policy, data on the numbers of rejected applicants with criminal histories and the nature of their crimes, and correspondence with USA and PAM, related to the development and application of the criminal background policy.
29. Defendants also provided information to Plaintiff regarding the role of USA and PAM in devising the criminal background policy and informed them that, after the lawsuit was filed, USA and PAM took over the role of applying the policy to applicants. Mediation and Settlement
30. On July 8, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ request for a further stay of litigation so that they could revive settlement negotiations in advance of private mediation.
31. Prior to the mediation, at Plaintiff’s request, Defendants produced information that would allow Plaintiff to generate an estimate of damages, including updated data on the number of rejected applicants with criminal backgrounds, data on the numbers of applicants who graduate from truck driver training, and expected compensation and turnover rates at USA and PAM.
32. Plaintiff hired a labor economist, Dr. Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D., to assist him to generate a damages model, which he shared with Defendants in advance of the parties’
6

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 7 of 63
mediation. 33. On October 4, 2011, the parties participated in a 12-hour mediation with an
experienced employment law mediator, Alfred G. Feliu, Esq., during which they advocated their respective views and shared detailed damages calculations.
34. The parties reached agreement on the material terms of a settlement, including the monetary amount, at the conclusion of the mediation.
35. The parties then negotiated a formal settlement agreement incorporating all terms. A fully executed copy of the settlement agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
36. In Plaintiff’s counsel’s estimation, the settlement represents a significant percentage of the recovery that Plaintiff would have achieved had he prevailed and survived an appeal and a substantial portion of what Defendants would be able to pay if faced with a judgment.
37. Defendants have represented that approximately 5,516 applicants were rejected based on the criminal background policy during the class period.
38. A proposed Court-Authorized Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 39. A proposed Claim Form is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Role of the Named Plaintiff 40. The named Plaintiff, Jeffrey Mayer, performed significant services to the class. 41. These services included, but were not limited to, informing counsel of the facts initially and as the case progressed, submitting to a deposition, producing documents in response to document requests, attending a full-day mediation session, participating in litigation strategy, and reviewing and commenting on the terms of the settlement.
7

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 8 of 63
Claims Administration 42. Plaintiff has retained Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, an experienced class
action claims administrator to administer the settlement. I declare under penalty of perjury, under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed this 17th day of January, 2012 New York, New York
/s/ Rachel Bien Rachel Bien OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP Adam T. Klein* Samuel R. Miller* Rachel Bien* Sandra E. Pullman* 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: 212-245-1000 *Admitted pro hac vice COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. Janet Ginzberg (Bar # 72152) Brendan Lynch (Bar # 82675) 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-981-3700 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
8

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 9 of 63
Exhibit A

CCasaese2:21:01-0c-vc-v0-10913993-9J-CJCJJ DDocoucmumenetn4t 71-71 Filed 071/2137/102 Page 10ofo1f 963

CCasaese2:21:01-0c-vc-v0-10913993-9J-CJCJJ DDocoucmumenetn4t 71-71 Filed 071/2137/102 Page 211ofo1f 963

CCasaese2:21:01-0c-vc-v0-10913993-9J-CJCJJ DDocoucmumenetn4t 71-71 Filed 071/2137/102 Page 312ofo1f 963

CCasaese2:21:01-0c-vc-v0-10913993-9J-CJCJJ DDocoucmumenetn4t 71-71 Filed 071/2137/102 Page 413ofo1f 963

CCasaese2:21:01-0c-vc-v0-10913993-9J-CJCJJ DDocoucmumenetn4t 71-71 Filed 071/2137/102 Page 514ofo1f 963

CCasaese2:21:01-0c-vc-v0-10913993-9J-CJCJJ DDocoucmumenetn4t 71-71 Filed 071/2137/102 Page 615ofo1f 963

CCasaese2:21:01-0c-vc-v0-10913993-9J-CJCJJ DDocoucmumenetn4t 71-71 Filed 071/2137/102 Page 716ofo1f 963

CCasaese2:21:01-0c-vc-v0-10913993-9J-CJCJJ DDocoucmumenetn4t 71-71 Filed 071/2137/102 Page 817ofo1f 963

CCasaese2:21:01-0c-vc-v0-10913993-9J-CJCJJ DDocoucmumenetn4t 71-71 Filed 071/2137/102 Page 918ofo1f 963

CCaassee22:1:100--ccvv--0011993399--JJCCJJ DDooccuummeenntt4177-1 FFilieledd0071/2/137/1/102 PPaaggee1109ooff1693

CCaassee22:1:100--ccvv--0011993399--JJCCJJ DDooccuummeenntt4177-1 FFilieledd0071/2/137/1/102 PPaaggee1210ooff1693

CCaassee22:1:100--ccvv--0011993399--JJCCJJ DDooccuummeenntt4177-1 FFilieledd0071/2/137/1/102 PPaaggee1221ooff1693

CCaassee22:1:100--ccvv--0011993399--JJCCJJ DDooccuummeenntt4177-1 FFilieledd0071/2/137/1/102 PPaaggee1232ooff1693

CCaassee22:1:100--ccvv--0011993399--JJCCJJ DDooccuummeenntt4177-1 FFilieledd0071/2/137/1/102 PPaaggee1243ooff1693

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 24 of 63

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 15 of 19

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 25 of 63

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 16 of 19

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 26 of 63

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/10 Page 17 of 19

CCaassee22:1:100--ccvv--0011993399--JJCCJJ DDooccuummeenntt4177-1 FFilieledd0071/2/137/1/102 PPaaggee1287ooff1693

CCaassee22:1:100--ccvv--0011993399--JJCCJJ DDooccuummeenntt4177-1 FFilieledd0071/2/137/1/102 PPaaggee1298ooff1693

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 29 of 63

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 30 of 63

,1 7+( 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 )25 7+( ($67(51 ',675,&7 2) 3(116</9$1,$

-())5(< 0$<(5 LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQG RQ EHKDOI RI DOO RWKHUV VLPLODUO\ VLWXDWHG

3ODLQWLII Y

-2,17 67,38/$7,21 2) 6(77/(0(17 $1' 5(/($6(

'5,9(5 62/87,216 ,1& '5,9(5 62/87,216 //& '5,9(5 +2/',1*6 //& DQG & 6 $&48,6,7,21 ,1&

'HIHQGDQWV

7KLV -RLQW 6WLSXODWLRQ RI 6HWWOHPHQW DQG 5HOHDVH WKH ³$JUHHPHQW´ LV HQWHUHG LQWR E\ DQG EHWZHHQ 3ODLQWLII -HIIUH\ 0D\HU DQG 'HIHQGDQWV DV KHUHLQDIWHU GHILQHG FROOHFWLYHO\ ³WKH 3DUWLHV´
5(&,7$/6 :+(5($6 3ODLQWLII ILOHG D &ODVV $FWLRQ &RPSODLQW RQ $SULO   DQG D )LUVW $PHQGHG &ODVV $FWLRQ &RPSODLQW RQ -XO\   WKH ³&RPSODLQW´ :+(5($6 WKH &RPSODLQW DVVHUWHG D GLVSDUDWH LPSDFW FODLP RI DOOHJHG GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW /DWLQR DQG $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ LQGLYLGXDOV XQGHU 7LWOH 9,, RI WKH &LYLO 5LJKWV $FW RI  DV DPHQGHG  86&   HW VHT DQG VRXJKW UHFRYHU\ RI DPRQJ RWKHU WKLQJV EDFNSD\ DQG RWKHU HTXLWDEOH DQGRU LQMXQFWLYH UHOLHI DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG FRVWV :+(5($6 'HIHQGDQWV GHQ\ WKH DOOHJDWLRQV PDGH E\ 3ODLQWLII LQ WKH /LWLJDWLRQ DV KHUHLQDIWHU GHILQHG 1RQHWKHOHVV ZLWKRXW DGPLWWLQJ DQ\ OLDELOLW\ RU GDPDJHV 'HIHQGDQWV KDYH DJUHHG WR VHWWOH WKH /LWLJDWLRQ RQ WKH WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV VHW IRUWK LQ WKLV $JUHHPHQW :+(5($6 &ODVV &RXQVHO DV KHUHLQDIWHU GHILQHG KDV FRQGXFWHG H[WHQVLYH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR UHYLHZLQJ GRFXPHQWV SURGXFHG E\ 'HIHQGDQWV DQG WKH WZR WUXFNLQJ FRPSDQLHV ZLWK ZKLFK WKH\ FRQWUDFW 3$0 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 6HUYLFHV ,QF DQG 86$ 7UXFN ,QF DQG GHSRVLQJ 'HIHQGDQWV¶ DQG RWKHU ZLWQHVVHV :+(5($6 WKH 3DUWLHV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ DQ DOOGD\ PHGLDWLRQ VHVVLRQ RI WKLV PDWWHU RQ 2FWREHU   ZKLFK ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ $OIUHG * )HOLX (VT RI 9DQGHQEHUJ )HOLX //3 :+(5($6 &ODVV &RXQVHO KDV DQDO\]HG DQG HYDOXDWHG WKH PHULWV RI WKH FODLP DQG WKH LPSDFW RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW RQ 3ODLQWLII DQG WKH SURSRVHG &ODVV DV KHUHLQDIWHU GHILQHG DQG

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 31 of 63
:+(5($6 EDVHG XSRQ WKHLU DQDO\VLV DQG WKHLU HYDOXDWLRQ RI PXOWLSOH IDFWRUV LQFOXGLQJ UHFRJQLWLRQ RI WKH VXEVWDQWLDO ULVNV RI FRQWLQXHG OLWLJDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW WKH /LWLJDWLRQ LI QRW VHWWOHG QRZ PLJKW UHVXOW LQ D UHFRYHU\ WKDW LV OHVV IDYRUDEOH WR WKH &ODVV DQG WKDW ZRXOG QRW RFFXU IRU VHYHUDO \HDUV &ODVV &RXQVHO LV VDWLVILHG WKDW WKH WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW DUH IDLU UHDVRQDEOH DQG DGHTXDWH DQG WKDW WKLV $JUHHPHQW LV LQ WKH EHVW LQWHUHVWV RI WKH SURSRVHG &ODVV
12: 7+(5()25( LQ FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH PXWXDO FRYHQDQWV DQG SURPLVHV VHW IRUWK LQ WKLV $JUHHPHQW DV ZHOO DV WKH JRRG DQG YDOXDEOH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ SURYLGHG IRU KHUHLQ WKH 3DUWLHV KHUHWR DJUHH WR D IXOO DQG FRPSOHWH VHWWOHPHQW RI WKH /LWLJDWLRQ RQ WKH IROORZLQJ WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV  '(),1,7,216
7KH GHILQHG WHUPV VHW IRUWK KHUHLQ VKDOO KDYH WKH PHDQLQJV DVFULEHG WR WKHP EHORZ  $JUHHPHQW ³$JUHHPHQW´ VKDOO PHDQ WKLV -RLQW 6WLSXODWLRQ RI 6HWWOHPHQW DQG 5HOHDVH
DJUHHPHQW  &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU ³&ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH HQWLW\ VHOHFWHG E\ 3ODLQWLII
WR SURYLGH QRWLFH WR WKH &ODVV DQG DGPLQLVWHU SD\PHQW RI WKH VHWWOHPHQW WR &ODVV 0HPEHUV  &ODVV &ODVV 0HPEHUV 7KH ³&ODVV´ VKDOO PHDQ DOO /DWLQR DQG $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR VXEPLWWHG DSSOLFDWLRQV EHWZHHQ -DQXDU\   DQG 6HSWHPEHU   WR 'HIHQGDQWV IRU D SODFHPHQW ZLWK RQH RI WKH WUXFNLQJ FRPSDQLHV IRU ZKLFK 'HIHQGDQWV UHFUXLW LQH[SHULHQFHG WUXFN GULYHUV DQG ZKRP ZHUH UHMHFWHG EDVHG RQ WKHLU FULPLQDO EDFNJURXQG $ PHPEHU RI WKH &ODVV LV D ³&ODVV 0HPEHU´  &ODVV &RXQVHO ³&ODVV &RXQVHO´ VKDOO PHDQ 2XWWHQ *ROGHQ //3 DQG &RPPXQLW\ /HJDO 6HUYLFHV ,QF  &ODVV /LVW 7KH ³&ODVV /LVW´ LV GHILQHG DV WKH OLVW LQ HOHFWURQLF IRUP RI &ODVV 0HPEHUV 7KH &ODVV /LVW VKDOO DOVR LQFOXGH IRU HDFK VXFK LQGLYLGXDO KLV RU KHU  ODVW NQRZQ DGGUHVV  ODVW NQRZQ WHOHSKRQH QXPEHU  GDWH RQ ZKLFK WKH LQGLYLGXDO¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ ZDV UHFHLYHG DQG  LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ IHORQ\ FULPLQDO KLVWRU\ LI VXFK LQIRUPDWLRQ H[LVWV LQ 'HIHQGDQWV¶ UHFRUGV  &ODLP )RUP ³&ODLP )RUP´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH IRUP WKDW WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO PDLO WR WKH LQGLYLGXDOV RQ WKH &ODVV /LVW $ FRS\ RI WKH SURSRVHG &ODLP )RUP LV DWWDFKHG KHUHWR DV ([KLELW $ $ &ODVV 0HPEHU ZKR UHWXUQV D &ODLP )RUP LV D ³&ODLPDQW´ $ &ODLPDQW ZKRVH &ODLP )RUP LV DSSURYHG E\ WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 32 of 63
SURFHVV VHW IRUWK EHORZ LV DQ ³$SSURYHG &ODLPDQW´  &RXUW ³&RXUW´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'LVWULFW &RXUW IRU WKH (DVWHUQ 'LVWULFW RI
3HQQV\OYDQLD WKH +RQRUDEOH - &XUWLV -R\QHU SUHVLGLQJ  &RYHUHG 3HULRG ³&RYHUHG 3HULRG´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH SHULRG IURP -DQXDU\   WKURXJK
6HSWHPEHU    'HIHQGDQWV ³'HIHQGDQWV´ VKDOO PHDQ 'ULYHU 6ROXWLRQV ,QF 'ULYHU 6ROXWLRQV //&
'ULYHU +ROGLQJV //& DQG & 6 $FTXLVLWLRQV ,QF  'HIHQGDQWV¶ &RXQVHO ³'HIHQGDQWV¶ &RXQVHO´ VKDOO PHDQ 2EHUPD\HU 5HEPDQQ 0D[ZHOO
+LSSHO //3 )RU SXUSRVHV RI SURYLGLQJ DQ\ QRWLFHV UHTXLUHG XQGHU WKLV $JUHHPHQW 'HIHQGDQWV¶ &RXQVHO VKDOO UHIHU WR -DFTXHOLQH . *DOODJKHU (VTXLUH 2EHUPD\HU 5HEPDQQ 0D[ZHOO +LSSHO //3 2QH 3HQQ &HQWHU WK IORRU 3KLODGHOSKLD 3$   (IIHFWLYH (IIHFWLYH 'DWH ³(IIHFWLYH´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH RFFXUUHQFH RI DOO RI WKH IROORZLQJ DQG ³(IIHFWLYH 'DWH´ VKDOO EH WKH GDWH WKDW DOO RI WKH IROORZLQJ KDYH RFFXUUHG $ WKH &RXUW KDV HQWHUHG -XGJPHQW DQG UXOHG RQ WKH PRWLRQV IRU 3ODLQWLII¶V VHUYLFH
SD\PHQW SXUVXDQW WR 6HFWLRQ  DQG IRU DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG UHDVRQDEOH FRVWV SXUVXDQW WR 6HFWLRQ  DQG % WKH -XGJPHQW DQG WKH UXOLQJV RQ VXFK PRWLRQV KDYH EHFRPH )LQDO ³)LQDO´ PHDQV WKH ODWHU RI   GD\V DIWHU WKH &RXUW HQWHUV -XGJPHQW LI QR UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ RU UHKHDULQJ
LV VRXJKW  ,I UHKHDULQJ RU UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ LV VRXJKW DIWHU DQ\ DQG DOO DYHQXHV RI
UHKHDULQJ RU UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ KDYH EHHQ H[KDXVWHG DQG QR IXUWKHU UHKHDULQJ RU UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ LV SHUPLWWHG DQG WKH WLPH IRU VHHNLQJ VXFK UHYLHZ KDV H[SLUHG DQG WKH -XGJPHQW DQG UXOLQJV RQ VHUYLFH DZDUGV DQG DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG UHDVRQDEOH FRVWV KDYH QRW EHHQ PRGLILHG DPHQGHG RU UHYHUVHG LQ DQ\ ZD\  )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ ³)DLUQHVV +HDULQJ´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH KHDULQJ RQ WKH 0RWLRQ IRU -XGJPHQW DQG )LQDO $SSURYDO  /LWLJDWLRQ ³/LWLJDWLRQ´ VKDOO PHDQ 0D\HU Y 'ULYHU 6ROXWLRQV ,QF HW DO &DVH 1R  &LY  -&- SHQGLQJ LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'LVWULFW &RXUW IRU WKH (DVWHUQ 'LVWULFW RI 3HQQV\OYDQLD


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 33 of 63
 0HGLDWRU¶V )HHV ³0HGLDWRU¶V )HHV´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH IHHV FKDUJHG E\ $OIUHG * )HOLX (VT IRU KLV PHGLDWLRQ VHUYLFHV
 1HW 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG ³1HW 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH UHPDLQGHU RI WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW DIWHU GHGXFWLRQV IRU FRXUWDSSURYHG DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG FRVWV DV GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQ  FRXUWDSSURYHG VHUYLFH SD\PHQW WR 3ODLQWLII DV GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQ  WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU¶V IHHV SXUVXDQW WR 6HFWLRQ  DQ\ IHHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQYHVWLQJ DQG OLTXLGDWLQJ WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW DV GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQ  DQG DQ\ WD[HV LQFXUUHG GLUHFWO\ RU LQGLUHFWO\ DV D UHVXOW RI LQYHVWLQJ WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW
 2UGHU *UDQWLQJ )LQDO $SSURYDO ³2UGHU *UDQWLQJ )LQDO $SSURYDO´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH ILQDO 2UGHU HQWHUHG E\ WKH &RXUW DIWHU WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ
 2UGHU *UDQWLQJ 3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO ³2UGHU *UDQWLQJ 3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH 2UGHU HQWHUHG E\ WKH &RXUW SUHOLPLQDULO\ DSSURYLQJ LQWHU DOLD WKH WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW WKH PDQQHU DQG WLPLQJ RI SURYLGLQJ QRWLFH WR WKH &ODVV DQG WKH WLPH SHULRG IRU RSWRXWV DQG REMHFWLRQV
 3DUWLHV ³3DUWLHV´ VKDOO PHDQ 3ODLQWLII DQG 'HIHQGDQWV  3ODLQWLII ³3ODLQWLII´ VKDOO UHIHU WR -HIIUH\ 0D\HU DQG VKDOO DOVR LQFOXGH DQ\ DQG DOO
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV KHLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV H[HFXWRUV EHQHILFLDULHV DJHQWV DQG DVVLJQV RI -HIIUH\ 0D\HU DV DSSOLFDEOH DQG ZLWKRXW OLPLWDWLRQ  6HWWOHPHQW )XQG $FFRXQW ³6HWWOHPHQW )XQG $FFRXQW´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH )',& LQVXUHG DFFRXQW FUHDWHG DQG FRQWUROOHG E\ WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW DQ LQWHUHVWEHDULQJ YHKLFOH WKDW LV DOVR )',& LQVXUHG LV DYDLODEOH WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO XVH VXFK YHKLFOH  6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW ³6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW´ VKDOO PHDQ WKH  SD\PHQW SOXV DQ\ LQWHUHVW DFFUXHG DV SURYLGHG LQ 6HFWLRQ $ WKDW 'HIHQGDQWV KDYH DJUHHG WR SD\ WR VHWWOH WKH /LWLJDWLRQ  $33529$/ $1' &/$66 127,&(  5HWHQWLRQ RI &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO EH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ SURFHVV DQG GLVWULEXWLRQV WR $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV DV SURYLGHG KHUHLQ &ODVV &RXQVHO VKDOO FKRRVH WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU 'HIHQGDQWV DJUHH WR FRRSHUDWH ZLWK WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU DQG DVVLVW LW LQ DQ\ ZD\ UHDVRQDEO\ QHFHVVDU\ WR DGPLQLVWHU WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU¶V IHHV VKDOO EH GHGXFWHG IURP WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 34 of 63
 3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO E\ WKH &RXUW :LWKLQ  GD\V RI WKH GDWH RQ ZKLFK WKLV $JUHHPHQW LV IXOO\ H[HFXWHG 3ODLQWLII ZLOO VXEPLW WR WKH &RXUW D 0RWLRQ IRU DQ 2UGHU &RQGLWLRQDOO\ &HUWLI\LQJ WKH &ODVV DQG 3UHOLPLQDULO\ $SSURYLQJ WKH &ODVV $FWLRQ 6HWWOHPHQW ³3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO 0RWLRQ´ ,Q FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKH 3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO 0RWLRQ 3ODLQWLII ZLOO VXEPLW WR WKH &RXUW DPRQJ RWKHU WKLQJV D D SURSRVHG 1RWLFH RI 6HWWOHPHQW RI WKH &ODVV $FWLRQ /DZVXLW DQG )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ DQG E D SURSRVHG 2UGHU *UDQWLQJ 3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO ZKLFK VKDOO LQFOXGH WKH ILQGLQJV UHTXLUHG E\ )HGHUDO 5XOH RI &LYLO 3URFHGXUH D DQG E 7KH 3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO 0RWLRQ ZLOO VHHN WKH VHWWLQJ RI GDWHV IRU RSWRXWV REMHFWLRQV DQG D )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ 'HIHQGDQWV ZLOO QRW RSSRVH WKLV DSSOLFDWLRQ
 'HQLDO RI 3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO ,I WKH &RXUW GHQLHV WKH 0RWLRQ IRU 3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO WKHQ WKH 3DUWLHV MRLQWO\ DJUHH WR VHHN UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH UXOLQJ RU VHHN &RXUW DSSURYDO RI D UHQHJRWLDWHG VHWWOHPHQW 6KRXOG UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ DQGRU WKH 3DUWLHV¶ DWWHPSW WR VHFXUH &RXUW DSSURYDO RI D UHQHJRWLDWHG VHWWOHPHQW EH GHQLHG WKH FDVH ZLOO SURFHHG DV LI QR VHWWOHPHQW KDG EHHQ DWWHPSWHG DQG 'HIHQGDQWV UHWDLQ DOO ULJKWV DQG GHIHQVHV WR DQG LQ WKH /LWLJDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR WKH ULJKWV WR FRQWHVW ZKHWKHU WKLV FDVH VKRXOG EH PDLQWDLQHG DV D FODVV DFWLRQ DQG WR FRQWHVW WKH PHULWV RI WKH FODLP EHLQJ DVVHUWHG E\ 3ODLQWLII LQ WKLV /LWLJDWLRQ ,Q VXFK D FDVH WKH 3DUWLHV ZLOO QHJRWLDWH DQG VXEPLW IRU &RXUW DSSURYDO D UHYLVHG FDVH PDQDJHPHQW VFKHGXOH
 )LQDO 2UGHU DQG -XGJPHQW IURP WKH &RXUW 3ODLQWLIIV ZLOO VHHN WR REWDLQ IURP WKH &RXUW DV D FRQGLWLRQ RI VHWWOHPHQW D )LQDO 2UGHU DQG -XGJPHQW 7KH 3URSRVHG )LQDO 2UGHU DQG -XGJPHQW ZLOO DPRQJ RWKHU WKLQJV D FHUWLI\ WKH &ODVV IRU SXUSRVHV RI VHWWOHPHQW E HQWHU -XGJPHQW LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKLV $JUHHPHQW F DSSURYH WKH VHWWOHPHQW DV IDLU DGHTXDWH UHDVRQDEOH DQG ELQGLQJ RQ DOO &ODVV 0HPEHUV ZKR KDYH QRW WLPHO\ RSWHG RXW SXUVXDQW WR 6HFWLRQ $ G GLVPLVV WKH /LWLJDWLRQ ZLWK SUHMXGLFH H HQWHU DQ RUGHU SHUPDQHQWO\ HQMRLQLQJ DOO &ODVV 0HPEHUV ZKR GR QRW RSW RXW IURP SXUVXLQJ DQGRU VHHNLQJ WR UHRSHQ FODLPV WKDW KDYH EHHQ UHOHDVHG E\ WKLV $JUHHPHQW DQG I LQFRUSRUDWH WKH WHUPV RI WKLV 6HWWOHPHQW DQG 5HOHDVH 'HIHQGDQWV ZLOO QRW RSSRVH WKLV DSSOLFDWLRQ
 &ODVV 1RWLFH $ :LWKLQ  EXVLQHVV GD\V RI WKH GDWH RI WKH 2UGHU *UDQWLQJ 3UHOLPLQDU\ $SSURYDO 'HIHQGDQWV ZLOO SURYLGH WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU ZLWK WKH &ODVV /LVW :LWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI DGGUHVVHV DQG WHOHSKRQH QXPEHUV WKLV GDWD DQG DQ\ RWKHU GDWD SURYLGHG E\ 'HIHQGDQWV WR WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU SXUVXDQW WR WKLV $JUHHPHQW VKDOO EH SUHVXPHG WR EH DFFXUDWH % :LWKLQ  FDOHQGDU GD\V DIWHU UHFHLYLQJ WKH &ODVV /LVW WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO PDLO YLD )LUVW &ODVV 8QLWHG 6WDWHV PDLO SRVWDJH SUHSDLG WKH &RXUWDSSURYHG 1RWLFH RI 3URSRVHG 6HWWOHPHQW RI &ODVV $FWLRQ /DZVXLW DQG )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ DQG 

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 35 of 63
&ODLPV )RUP ZLWK DQ HQFORVHG SUHSDLG UHWXUQ HQYHORSH WR DOO LQGLYLGXDOV RQ WKH &ODVV /LVW XVLQJ HDFK LQGLYLGXDO¶V ODVW NQRZQ DGGUHVV DV UHFRUGHG LQ 'HIHQGDQWV¶ UHFRUGV 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO WDNH DOO UHDVRQDEOH VWHSV WR REWDLQ WKH FRUUHFW DGGUHVV RI DQ\ LQGLYLGXDO RQ WKH &ODVV /LVW IRU ZKRP WKH QRWLFH LV UHWXUQHG E\ WKH SRVW RIILFH DV XQGHOLYHUDEOH DQG VKDOO DWWHPSW UHPDLOLQJV DV GHVFULEHG EHORZ  &ODVV 0HPEHU 2SW2XW $ $Q\ &ODVV 0HPEHU PD\ UHTXHVW H[FOXVLRQ IURP WKH &ODVV E\ ³RSWLQJ RXW´ &ODVV 0HPEHUV ZKR FKRRVH WR GR VR PXVW PDLO D ZULWWHQ VLJQHG VWDWHPHQW WR WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU WKDW KH RU VKH LV RSWLQJ RXW RI WKH PRQHWDU\ SRUWLRQ RI WKH 6HWWOHPHQW ³2SW2XW 6WDWHPHQW´ 7KH 2SW2XW 6WDWHPHQW PXVW FRQWDLQ WKH QDPH DGGUHVV DQG WHOHSKRQH QXPEHU RI WKH &ODVV 0HPEHU WR EH YDOLG ,W PXVW DOVR FRQWDLQ WKH ZRUGV ³, HOHFW WR H[FOXGH P\VHOI IURP WKH VHWWOHPHQW LQ 0D\HU Y 'ULYHU 6ROXWLRQV´ LQ RUGHU WR EH YDOLG 7R EH HIIHFWLYH VXFK 2SW2XW 6WDWHPHQWV PXVW DOVR EH VHQW YLD )LUVW &ODVV 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 0DLO DQG SRVWPDUNHG E\ D GDWH FHUWDLQ WR EH VSHFLILHG RQ WKH &RXUW $XWKRUL]HG 1RWLFH RI 3URSRVHG &ODVV $FWLRQ /DZVXLW 6HWWOHPHQW DQG )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ ZKLFK ZLOO EH  FDOHQGDU GD\V DIWHU WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU PDLOV WKH 1RWLFH 7KH  GD\ SHULRG ZLOO EHJLQ WR UXQ IURP WKH ILUVW PDLOLQJ H[FHSW IRU WKRVH &ODVV 0HPEHUV ZKRVH ILUVW PDLOLQJ ZDV UHWXUQHG WR WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU DV XQGHOLYHUDEOH LQ ZKLFK FDVH WKH  GD\ SHULRG IRU DQ\ VXFK &ODVV 0HPEHU ZLOO EHJLQ WR UXQ IURP WKH GDWH RI WKH VHFRQG PDLOLQJ RU LI WKHUH DUH PRUH WKDQ  PDLOLQJV WKH ILQDO PDLOLQJ WR VXFK &ODVV 0HPEHU XQOHVV DQRWKHU SHULRG LV VHW E\ WKH &RXUW 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO QRW DWWHPSW PRUH WKDQ  PDLOLQJV RI WKH 1RWLFH RI 3URSRVHG &ODVV $FWLRQ /DZVXLW DQG )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ WR DQ\ &ODVV 0HPEHU 7KH HQG RI WKH ³2SW2XW 3HULRG´ VKDOO EH  FDOHQGDU GD\V DIWHU WKH ODVW GD\ RQ ZKLFK WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU PDNHV D PDLOLQJ 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO ZLWKLQ  FDOHQGDU GD\V DIWHU WKH ODVW GD\ RQ ZKLFK LW PDNHV VXFK D PDLOLQJ QRWLI\ &ODVV &RXQVHO DQG 'HIHQGDQWV¶ &RXQVHO RI WKH SUHFLVH GDWH RI WKH HQG RI WKH 2SW2XW 3HULRG % 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO VWDPS WKH SRVWPDUN GDWH RQ WKH RULJLQDO RI HDFK 2SW2XW 6WDWHPHQW WKDW LW UHFHLYHV DQG VKDOO VHUYH FRSLHV RI HDFK 6WDWHPHQW RQ &ODVV &RXQVHO DQG 'HIHQGDQWV¶ &RXQVHO QRW ODWHU WKDQ  FDOHQGDU GD\V DIWHU UHFHLSW WKHUHRI 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU DOVR VKDOO ZLWKLQ  FDOHQGDU GD\V RI WKH HQG RI WKH 2SW2XW 3HULRG ILOH ZLWK WKH &OHUN RI &RXUW VWDPSHG FRSLHV RI DQ\ 2SW2XW 6WDWHPHQWV 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO ZLWKLQ  KRXUV RI WKH HQG RI WKH 2SW2XW 3HULRG VHQG D ILQDO OLVW RI DOO 2SW2XW 6WDWHPHQWV WR &ODVV &RXQVHO DQG 'HIHQGDQWV¶ &RXQVHO 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO UHWDLQ WKH VWDPSHG


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 36 of 63
RULJLQDOV RI DOO 2SW2XW 6WDWHPHQWV DQG RULJLQDOV RI DOO HQYHORSHV DFFRPSDQ\LQJ 2SW2XW 6WDWHPHQWV LQ LWV ILOHV XQWLO VXFK WLPH DV WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU LV UHOLHYHG RI LWV GXWLHV DQG UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV XQGHU WKLV $JUHHPHQW  &ODLPV 3URFHVV $ &ODVV 0HPEHUV VKDOO KDYH  GD\V WR UHWXUQ WKHLU FRPSOHWHG &ODLP )RUPV LQ RUGHU WR EH HOLJLEOH WR REWDLQ D SRUWLRQ RI WKH 1HW 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG 7KH  GD\ SHULRG ZLOO EHJLQ WR UXQ IURP WKH ILUVW PDLOLQJ H[FHSW IRU WKRVH &ODVV 0HPEHUV ZKRVH ILUVW PDLOLQJ ZDV UHWXUQHG WR WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU DV XQGHOLYHUDEOH LQ ZKLFK FDVH WKH  GD\ SHULRG IRU DQ\ VXFK &ODVV 0HPEHU ZLOO EHJLQ WR UXQ IURP WKH GDWH RI WKH VHFRQG PDLOLQJ RU LI WKHUH DUH PRUH WKDQ  PDLOLQJV WKH ILQDO PDLOLQJ WR VXFK &ODVV 0HPEHU XQOHVV DQRWKHU SHULRG LV VHW E\ WKH &RXUW 6XEMHFW WR DQ\ ULJKWV WR FXUH DV SURYLGHG LQ 6HFWLRQ % QR &ODLP )RUPV ZLOO EH KRQRUHG LI SRVWPDUNHG DIWHU WKH GD\ SHULRG KDV HODSVHG % 6XEPLVVLRQ RI DQ LQFRPSOHWH &ODLP )RUP PD\ UHQGHU WKH &ODVV 0HPEHU¶V VXEPLVVLRQ LQYDOLG LI QRW IL[HG $ &ODLP )RUP ZLOO EH FRQVLGHUHG LQFRPSOHWH LI WKH &ODVV 0HPEHU IDLOHG WR SURYLGH D UHVSRQVH WR HDFK TXHVWLRQ RQ WKH &ODLP )RUP ,Q VXFK FLUFXPVWDQFHV WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO VHQG D OHWWHU WR WKH &ODVV 0HPEHU H[SODLQLQJ WKH UHDVRQ ZK\ WKH VXEPLWWHG &ODLP )RUP LV LQFRPSOHWH DQG JLYLQJ WKH &ODVV 0HPEHU WKLUW\  GD\V WR FXUH WKH RPLVVLRQ ,I WKH &ODVV 0HPEHU GRHV QRW FXUH &ODVV &RXQVHO UHVHUYH WKH ULJKW WR IROORZXS ZLWK WKH &ODVV 0HPEHU WR WU\ DQG DVVLVW KLP RU KHU LQ FRPSOHWLQJ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH FXUH PXVW RFFXU ZLWKLQ  GD\V WRWDO LH &ODVV &RXQVHO KDYH  GD\V WR ZRUN ZLWK WKH &ODVV 0HPEHU 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO RQO\ VHQG D FXUH OHWWHU RQFH SXUVXDQW WR WKLV 6HFWLRQ WR DQ\ &ODVV 0HPEHU )DLOXUH WR VXSSO\ WKH PLVVLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DIWHU JLYHQ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR FXUH DV SURYLGHG LQ WKLV 6HFWLRQ VKDOO UHQGHU WKH &ODVV 0HPEHU¶V VXEPLVVLRQ LQYDOLG & 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO FURVVFKHFN WKH IHORQ\ FULPLQDO KLVWRU\ LQIRUPDWLRQ VHOIUHSRUWHG LQ UHVSRQVH WR 4XHVWLRQV  DQG  RI WKH &ODLP )RUP ZLWK WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG LQ 'HIHQGDQWV¶ UHFRUGV LI VXFK LQIRUPDWLRQ H[LVWV :KHUH D GLVFUHSDQF\ LV IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH VHOI UHSRUWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG WKDW ZKLFK H[LVWV LQ 'HIHQGDQWV¶ UHFRUGV WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO LQIRUP &ODVV &RXQVHO ZLWKLQ  EXVLQHVV GD\V RI WKH GDWH RQ ZKLFK LW LGHQWLILHV WKH GLVFUHSDQF\ &ODVV &RXQVHO PD\ WKHQ DWWHPSW WR YHULI\ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLWK WKH &ODLPDQW 6XFK DWWHPSW PD\ LQFOXGH LQWHUYLHZLQJ WKH &ODLPDQW DQGRU UHTXHVWLQJ WKDW WKH &ODLPDQW SURGXFH HYLGHQFH VXSSRUWLQJ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ KH RU VKH VHOIUHSRUWHG $V


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 37 of 63
VRRQ DV SUDFWLFDEOH &ODVV &RXQVHO VKDOO LQIRUP WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU RI LWV GHWHUPLQDWLRQ ZKHWKHU WKH &ODLPDQW VKRXOG EH GHHPHG DQ $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW ' :LWKLQ WHQ  EXVLQHVV GD\V DIWHU WKH GHDGOLQH IRU DOO &ODLP )RUPV WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO SURYLGH D VSUHDGVKHHW WR &ODVV &RXQVHO DQG 'HIHQGDQWV¶ &RXQVHO WKDW FRQWDLQV WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ L LGHQWLI\LQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU HDFK &ODLPDQW LQFOXGLQJ QDPH LL WKH DQVZHUV SURYLGHG E\ HDFK &ODLPDQW WR HDFK RI WKH TXHVWLRQV RQ WKH &ODLP )RUP LLL WKH GDWH HDFK &ODLP )RUP ZDV SRVWPDUNHG LY ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKH &ODLP )RUP ZDV FRPSOHWH RU LQFRPSOHWH DQG LI LQFRPSOHWH ZKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV PLVVLQJ Y ZKLFK &ODLPDQWV WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU SURSRVHV WR WUHDW DV $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV YL WKH DPRXQW SURSRVHG WR EH SDLG WR HDFK $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW DQG YLL ZKLFK &ODLP )RUPV WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU KDV GHQLHG DQG WKH UHDVRQV IRU WKH GHQLDO 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO SURYLGH VXSSOHPHQWDO VSUHDGVKHHWV LI QHHGHG ZLWKLQ WHQ  EXVLQHVV GD\V DIWHU DQ\ GHDGOLQHV WR FXUH LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK 6HFWLRQ % KDYH H[SLUHG 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO UHWDLQ WKH RULJLQDOV RI DOO &ODLP )RUPV LQFOXGLQJ WKH HQYHORSHV ZLWK WKH SRVWPDUNV UHFHLYHG IURP &ODLPDQWV DQG VKDOO PDNH FRSLHV RU WKH RULJLQDOV DYDLODEOH WR 'HIHQGDQWV RU &ODVV &RXQVHO ZLWKLQ RQH  EXVLQHVV GD\ XSRQ UHTXHVW ( &ODVV &RXQVHO VKDOO KDYH WKH ULJKW WR FKDOOHQJH D &ODLPDQW¶V HOLJLELOLW\ WR UHFRYHU ZKHUH WKHUH H[LVWV D JRRG IDLWK EHOLHI WKDW D &ODLPDQW¶V VXEPLVVLRQ PD\ EH LQYDOLG &ODVV &RXQVHO VKDOO DOVR KDYH WKH ULJKW WR FKDOOHQJH WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU¶V GHWHUPLQDWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ DSSURYDO RU GHQLDO RI HDFK &ODLP )RUP DQG WKH DPRXQW WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU SURSRVHV WR SD\ WR HDFK &ODLPDQW +RZHYHU LQ QR HYHQW VKDOO VXFK FKDOOHQJH RU DQ\ UHVXOW RI VXFK FKDOOHQJH LQYDOLGDWH YRLG RU RWKHUZLVH DIIHFW DQ\ &ODLPDQW¶V UHOHDVH RI FODLPV DJDLQVW 'HIHQGDQWV RU WKH UHOHDVH E\ &ODLPDQWV GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQ  RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW  2EMHFWLRQV WR 6HWWOHPHQW $ &ODVV 0HPEHUV ZKR ZLVK WR SUHVHQW REMHFWLRQV WR WKH SURSRVHG VHWWOHPHQW DW WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ PXVW ILUVW GR VR LQ ZULWLQJ 7R EH FRQVLGHUHG VXFK VWDWHPHQW PXVW EH VHQW WR WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU YLD )LUVW&ODVV 8QLWHG 6WDWHV PDLO SRVWDJH SUHSDLG DQG EH UHFHLYHG E\ WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU E\ D GDWH FHUWDLQ WR EH VSHFLILHG RQ WKH &RXUW $XWKRUL]HG RI 1RWLFH RI 3URSRVHG 6HWWOHPHQW RI &ODVV $FWLRQ /DZVXLW DQG )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ 7KH GDWH FHUWDLQ IRU HDFK &ODVV 0HPEHU VKDOO EH  GD\V DIWHU WKH ODVW PDLOLQJ RI WKH 1RWLFH E\ WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO VWDPS WKH GDWH UHFHLYHG RQ WKH RULJLQDO REMHFWLRQ


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 38 of 63
DQG VHQG FRSLHV RI HDFK REMHFWLRQ WR &ODVV &RXQVHO DQG 'HIHQGDQWV¶ &RXQVHO QRW ODWHU WKDQ  FDOHQGDU GD\V DIWHU UHFHLSW WKHUHRI 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO DOVR ILOH WKH GDWHVWDPSHG RULJLQDOV RI DQ\ DQG DOO REMHFWLRQV ZLWK WKH &OHUN RI &RXUW ZLWKLQ  FDOHQGDU GD\V DIWHU WKH HQG RI WKH 2SW2XW 3HULRG % $Q REMHFWRU DOVR KDV WKH ULJKW WR DSSHDU DW WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ HLWKHU LQ SHUVRQ RU WKURXJK FRXQVHO KLUHG E\ WKH REMHFWRU $Q REMHFWRU ZKR ZLVKHV WR DSSHDU DW WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ PXVW VWDWH KLV RU KHU LQWHQWLRQ WR GR VR DW WKH WLPH KHVKH VXEPLWV KLVKHU ZULWWHQ REMHFWLRQV $Q REMHFWRU PD\ ZLWKGUDZ KLVKHU REMHFWLRQV DW DQ\ WLPH 1R REMHFWRU PD\ DSSHDU DW WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ XQOHVV KHVKH KDV ILOHG D WLPHO\ REMHFWLRQ WKDW FRPSOLHV ZLWK WKH SURFHGXUHV SURYLGHG LQ 6HFWLRQ $ $Q\ &ODVV 0HPEHU ZKR KDV UHTXHVWHG H[FOXVLRQ PD\ QRW VXEPLW REMHFWLRQV WR WKH VHWWOHPHQW & 7KH 3DUWLHV PD\ ILOH ZLWK WKH &RXUW ZULWWHQ UHVSRQVHV WR DQ\ ILOHG REMHFWLRQV QR ODWHU WKDQ  FDOHQGDU GD\V EHIRUH WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ  0RWLRQ IRU -XGJPHQW DQG )LQDO $SSURYDO 1R ODWHU WKDQ  FDOHQGDU GD\V EHIRUH WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ 3ODLQWLIIV ZLOO VXEPLW D 0RWLRQ IRU -XGJPHQW DQG )LQDO $SSURYDO 7KH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ VKDOO EH KHOG DW WKH &RXUW¶V FRQYHQLHQFH  (QWU\ RI -XGJPHQW $W WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ WKH 3DUWLHV ZLOO UHTXHVW WKDW WKH &RXUW DPRQJ RWKHU WKLQJV D FHUWLI\ WKH &ODVV IRU SXUSRVHV RI VHWWOHPHQW E HQWHU -XGJPHQW LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKLV $JUHHPHQW F DSSURYH WKH VHWWOHPHQW DV IDLU DGHTXDWH UHDVRQDEOH DQG ELQGLQJ RQ DOO &ODVV 0HPEHUV ZKR KDYH QRW WLPHO\ RSWHG RXW SXUVXDQW WR 6HFWLRQ  G GLVPLVV WKH /LWLJDWLRQ ZLWK SUHMXGLFH H HQWHU DQ RUGHU SHUPDQHQWO\ HQMRLQLQJ DOO &ODVV 0HPEHUV ZKR GR QRW RSW RXW IURP SXUVXLQJ DQGRU VHHNLQJ WR UHRSHQ FODLPV WKDW KDYH EHHQ UHOHDVHG E\ WKLV $JUHHPHQW DQG I LQFRUSRUDWH WKH WHUPV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW  (IIHFW RI )DLOXUH WR *UDQW )LQDO $SSURYDO ,Q WKH HYHQW WKH &RXUW IDLOV WR HQWHU -XGJPHQW LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKLV $JUHHPHQW RU VXFK -XGJPHQW GRHV QRW EHFRPH )LQDO DV GHILQHG KHUHLQ WKH 3DUWLHV VKDOO SURFHHG DV IROORZV 7KH 3DUWLHV MRLQWO\ DJUHH WR D VHHN UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH GHFLVLRQ GHQ\LQJ HQWU\ RI -XGJPHQW RU E DWWHPSW WR UHQHJRWLDWH WKH VHWWOHPHQW DQG VHHN &RXUW DSSURYDO RI WKH UHQHJRWLDWHG VHWWOHPHQW ,Q WKH HYHQW DQ\ UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ LV GHQLHG RU D PXWXDOO\ DJUHHGXSRQ VHWWOHPHQW LV QRW DSSURYHG $ 7KH /LWLJDWLRQ ZLOO SURFHHG DV LI QR VHWWOHPHQW KDG EHHQ DWWHPSWHG ,Q WKDW HYHQW WKH FODVV FHUWLILHG IRU SXUSRVHV RI VHWWOHPHQW VKDOO EH GHFHUWLILHG DQG 'HIHQGDQWV UHWDLQ DOO ULJKWV DQG GHIHQVHV WR DQG LQ WKH /LWLJDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR WKH ULJKWV WR FRQWHVW ZKHWKHU WKLV /LWLJDWLRQ VKRXOG EH PDLQWDLQHG DV D FODVV DFWLRQ DQG WR FRQWHVW WKH PHULWV RI WKH FODLPV EHLQJ DVVHUWHG E\ 3ODLQWLII LQ WKLV DFWLRQ


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 39 of 63
% 7KH &RXUW ZLOO SURYLGH QRWLFH WR &ODVV 0HPEHUV WKDW WKH $JUHHPHQW GLG QRW UHFHLYH ILQDO DSSURYDO DQG WKDW DV D UHVXOW QR SD\PHQWV ZLOO EH PDGH WR &ODVV 0HPEHUV XQGHU WKH $JUHHPHQW 6XFK QRWLFH VKDOO EH PDLOHG E\ WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU YLD )LUVW &ODVV 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 0DLO SRVWDJH SUHSDLG WR WKH ODVW DGGUHVV XVHG E\ WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU LQ PDLOLQJ WKH 1RWLFH RI 3URSRVHG 6HWWOHPHQW RI &ODVV $FWLRQ /DZVXLW DQG )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ
& 7KH IXOO DPRXQW RI WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW GHSRVLWHG SXUVXDQW WR 6HFWLRQ % DQG DOO LQWHUHVW DFFUXHG WKHUHRQ VKDOO EH UHWXUQHG WR 'HIHQGDQWV DV VRRQ DV SUDFWLFDEOH
 6(77/(0(17 7(506  6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW
$ 'HIHQGDQWV DJUHH WR SD\  ZKLFK VKDOO UHVROYH DQG VDWLVI\ D FRXUW DSSURYHG DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG FRVWV E DOO DPRXQWV WR EH SDLG WR $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV F WKH FRXUWDSSURYHG VHUYLFH SD\PHQW WR 3ODLQWLII G WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU¶V IHHV DQG H DQ\ IHHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQYHVWLQJ DQG OLTXLGDWLQJ WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW 2WKHU WKDQ WKH 0HGLDWRU¶V )HHV 'HIHQGDQWV ZLOO QRW EH UHTXLUHG WR SD\ PRUH WKDQ  XQGHU WKLV $JUHHPHQW
% :LWKLQ  GD\V RI WKH GDWH RQ ZKLFK WKH &RXUW LVVXHV DQ 2UGHU &RQGLWLRQDOO\ &HUWLI\LQJ WKH &ODVV DQG 3UHOLPLQDULO\ $SSURYLQJ WKH &ODVV $FWLRQ 6HWWOHPHQW 'HIHQGDQWV VKDOO FDXVH WR EH GHSRVLWHG WKH  6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW LQWR WKH 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG $FFRXQW $Q\ LQWHUHVW DFFUXHG IURP WKH 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG $FFRXQW QHW RI WD[HV DQG DQ\ IHHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQYHVWLQJ VXFK DPRXQW VKDOO LPPHGLDWHO\ EH DGGHG WR DQG EHFRPH SDUW RI WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW
& :LWKLQ  GD\V RI WKH (IIHFWLYH 'DWH WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU ZLOO GLVWULEXWH WKH PRQH\ LQ WKH 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG $FFRXQW E\ PDNLQJ WKH IROORZLQJ SD\PHQWV  3D\LQJ &ODVV &RXQVHO &RXUWDSSURYHG DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG FRVWV DV GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQ $  3D\LQJ 3ODLQWLII WKH DPRXQW GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQ   3D\LQJ $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV WKHLU SRUWLRQ RI WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW DV GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQ 
 6HWWOHPHQW $PRXQWV 3D\DEOH DV $WWRUQH\V¶ )HHV DQG &RVWV $ 3ULRU WR WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ &ODVV &RXQVHO VKDOO SHWLWLRQ WKH &RXUW IRU QR PRUH 

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 40 of 63
WKDQ RQHWKLUG RI WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW DV DQ DZDUG RI DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ &ODVV &RXQVHO VKDOO DOVR VHHN UHLPEXUVHPHQW RI UHDVRQDEOH OLWLJDWLRQ FRVWV IURP WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW ZKLFK VKDOO QRW H[FHHG  'HIHQGDQWV ZLOO QRW RSSRVH VXFK DSSOLFDWLRQV % 7KH VXEVWDQFH RI &ODVV &RXQVHO¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG FRVWV LV QRW SDUW RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW DQG LV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG VHSDUDWHO\ IURP WKH &RXUW¶V FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH IDLUQHVV UHDVRQDEOHQHVV DGHTXDF\ DQG JRRG IDLWK RI WKH VHWWOHPHQW RI WKH /LWLJDWLRQ 7KH RXWFRPH RI DQ\ SURFHHGLQJ UHODWHG WR &ODVV &RXQVHO¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG FRVWV VKDOO QRW WHUPLQDWH WKLV $JUHHPHQW RU RWKHUZLVH DIIHFW WKH &RXUW¶V UXOLQJ RQ WKH 0RWLRQ IRU -XGJPHQW DQG )LQDO $SSURYDO $Q\ PRQLHV QRW DSSURYHG E\ WKH &RXUW EHFRPH SDUW RI WKH 1HW 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG  3D\PHQW WR 3ODLQWLII 3ULRU WR WKH )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ 3ODLQWLII ZLOO DSSO\ WR WKH &RXUW WR UHFHLYH  IURP WKH 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG IRU VHUYLFHV UHQGHUHG WR WKH &ODVV 'HIHQGDQWV ZLOO QRW RSSRVH VXFK DSSOLFDWLRQ 7KH VHUYLFH SD\PHQW DQG WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU REWDLQLQJ VXFK SD\PHQW DUH VHSDUDWH DQG DSDUW IURP DQG LQ DGGLWLRQ WR 3ODLQWLII¶V UHFRYHU\ IURP WKH 1HW 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG 7KH VXEVWDQFH RI WKH DERYHUHIHUHQFHG 3ODLQWLII¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU D VHUYLFH DZDUG LV QRW SDUW RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW DQG LV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG VHSDUDWHO\ IURP WKH &RXUW¶V FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH IDLUQHVV UHDVRQDEOHQHVV DGHTXDF\ DQG JRRG IDLWK RI WKH VHWWOHPHQW RI WKH /LWLJDWLRQ 7KH RXWFRPH RI WKH &RXUW¶V UXOLQJ RQ WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU VHUYLFH SD\PHQWV VKDOO QRW WHUPLQDWH WKLV $JUHHPHQW RU RWKHUZLVH DIIHFW WKH &RXUW¶V UXOLQJ RQ WKH 0RWLRQ IRU -XGJPHQW DQG )LQDO $SSURYDO $Q\ PRQLHV QRW DSSURYHG E\ WKH &RXUW EHFRPH SDUW RI WKH 1HW 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG  'LVWULEXWLRQ WR $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV $ $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV ZLOO EH HOLJLEOH IRU D SD\PHQW KHUHXQGHU VXEMHFW WR WKH UHOHDVH VHW IRUWK LQ 6HFWLRQ $ % 7R EH GHHPHG DQ $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW D &ODLPDQW PXVW  5HWXUQ D &ODLP )RUP E\ WKH GHDGOLQH VHW IRUWK LQ KLV RU KHU &RXUW
$XWKRUL]HG RI 1RWLFH RI 3URSRVHG 6HWWOHPHQW RI &ODVV $FWLRQ /DZVXLW DQG )DLUQHVV +HDULQJ DQG  $QVZHU HDFK TXHVWLRQ LQ WKH &ODLP )RUP RU FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH FXUH SURYLVLRQ VHW IRUWK LQ 6HFWLRQ % & $ &ODLPDQW ZKR FRPSOLHV ZLWK 6HFWLRQ % DQG  VKDOO QRW EH GHHPHG DQ $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW LI KH RU VKH


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 41 of 63
 $QVZHUV <(6 LQ UHVSRQVH WR 4XHVWLRQ  DQG FKHFNV RII DQ\ ER[ LQ UHVSRQVH WR 4XHVWLRQ  RU
 'RHV QRW VHOILGHQWLI\ DV ³+LVSDQLF /DWLQR RU 6SDQLVK´ LQ UHVSRQVH WR 4XHVWLRQ  RU DV ³%ODFN RU $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ´ LQ UHVSRQVH WR 4XHVWLRQ 
' $Q $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW¶V SURSRUWLRQDWH VKDUH RI WKH 1HW 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW VKDOO EH GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU SXUVXDQW WR WKH IRUPXOD VHW IRUWK EHORZ 3RLQWV (DFK $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW VKDOO HDUQ  SRLQW IRU HDFK ZHHN IRU ZKLFK KH RU VKH ZDV XQHPSOR\HG EHWZHHQ -DQXDU\   DQG WKH SUHVHQW &DOFXODWLRQ 7R FDOFXODWH HDFK $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW¶V SURSRUWLRQDWH VKDUH D $GG DOO SRLQWV IRU DOO $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV WRJHWKHU WR REWDLQ WKH ³7RWDO 'HQRPLQDWRU´ E 'LYLGH WKH QXPEHU RI SRLQWV IRU HDFK $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW E\ WKH 7RWDO 'HQRPLQDWRU WR REWDLQ HDFK $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW¶V ³3RUWLRQ RI WKH 1HW 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG´ F 0XOWLSO\ HDFK $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW¶V 3RUWLRQ RI WKH 1HW 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG E\ WKH 1HW 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG WR GHWHUPLQH HDFK $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW¶V ³6HWWOHPHQW $ZDUG´
( 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO PDLO WR DOO HDFK $SSURYHG &ODLPDQW KLV RU KHU UHVSHFWLYH 6HWWOHPHQW $ZDUG ZLWKLQ  GD\V RI WKH (IIHFWLYH 'DWH 7KH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO XVH UHDVRQDEOH HIIRUWV WR PDNH DQ DGGLWLRQDO PDLOLQJ WR $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV ZKRVH FKHFNV DUH UHWXUQHG EHFDXVH RI LQFRUUHFW DGGUHVVHV 6XFK HIIRUWV VKDOO LQFOXGH XVLQJ VRFLDO VHFXULW\ QXPEHUV WR REWDLQ EHWWHU DGGUHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG IRU $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV ZKRVH SD\PHQW LV JUHDWHU WKDQ  DWWHPSWLQJ WR FDOO VXFK $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV $Q\ DGGLWLRQDO HIIRUWV XQGHUWDNHQ LI DQ\ VKDOO EH LQ WKH VROH GLVFUHWLRQ RI WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU
) ,I SD\PHQWV WR $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV DV GHVFULEHG LQ WKLV 6HFWLRQ DUH QRW FDVKHG ZLWKLQ  GD\V RI WKH FKHFN GDWH WKH FKHFNV ZLOO EH QXOO DQG YRLG DQG WKH PRQH\ ZLOO UHPDLQ LQ WKH 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG $FFRXQW ,I LQ WKH YLHZ RI WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU WKHUH DUH VXIILFLHQW IXQGV UHPDLQLQJ LQ WKH 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG 

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 42 of 63
$FFRXQW  GD\V DIWHU WKH SD\PHQWV GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQV  KDYH EHHQ GLVWULEXWHG WR PDNH D VHFRQG GLVWULEXWLRQ WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU VKDOO UHGLVWULEXWH WKH PRQH\ DPRQJ $SSURYHG &ODLPDQWV LQ SURUDWD SD\PHQWV EDVHG RQ WKH IRUPXOD VHW IRUWK LQ WKLV 6HFWLRQ ,I LQ WKH &ODLPV $GPLQLVWUDWRU¶V YLHZ D VHFRQG GLVWULEXWLRQ LV QRW DGPLQLVWUDEO\ IHDVLEOH EHFDXVH LQVXIILFLHQW IXQGV UHPDLQ LQ WKH 6HWWOHPHQW )XQG $FFRXQW DIWHU WKH SD\PHQWV GHVFULEHG LQ 6HFWLRQV  KDYH EHHQ GLVWULEXWHG WKH PRQH\ ZLOO EH GRQDWHG WR WKH 3HQQV\OYDQLD 3ULVRQ 6RFLHW\ 3ODLQWLII¶V F\ SUHV GHVLJQHH VXEMHFW WR WKH &RXUW¶V DSSURYDO 7KHUH ZLOO EH QR UHYHUVLRQ WR 'HIHQGDQWV  7D[DELOLW\ RI 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQWV 3D\PHQWV VKDOO EH PDGH ZLWKRXW ZLWKKROGLQJ DQG VKDOO EH UHSRUWHG WR WKH ,56 DQG WKH SD\HH WR WKH H[WHQW UHTXLUHG E\ ODZ XQGHU WKH SD\HH¶V QDPH DQG VRFLDO VHFXULW\ QXPEHU RQ DQ ,56 )RUP  3D\PHQWV RI DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG FRVWV SXUVXDQW WR 6HFWLRQ  VKDOO EH PDGH ZLWKRXW ZLWKKROGLQJ &ODVV &RXQVHO ZLOO UHFHLYH D )RUP  IRU WKLV SD\PHQW $Q\ VHUYLFH SD\PHQW SXUVXDQW WR 6HFWLRQ  VKDOO EH PDGH ZLWKRXW ZLWKKROGLQJ DQG UHSRUWHG WR WKH ,56 DQG WKH SD\HH XQGHU WKH SD\HH¶V QDPH DQG VRFLDO VHFXULW\ QXPEHU RQ DQ ,56 )RUP   3URVSHFWLYH 5HOLHI $ 'HIHQGDQWV DJUHH WKDW LQ WKH HYHQW WKH\ DUH UHTXHVWHG E\ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH WUXFNLQJ FRPSDQLHV IRU ZKLFK WKH\ UHFUXLW LQH[SHULHQFHG WUXFN GULYHUV LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR 86$ 7UXFN ,QF DQG 3$0 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 6HUYLFHV ,QF WR FRQGXFW D FULPLQDO KLVWRU\ EDFNJURXQG FKHFN RQ DSSOLFDQWV RU RWKHUZLVH VFUHHQ DSSOLFDQWV¶ FULPLQDO KLVWRULHV IRU SXUSRVHV RI HPSOR\PHQW 'HIHQGDQWV VKDOO DSSO\ D FULPLQDO KLVWRU\ SROLF\ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKDW VHW IRUWK LQ ([KLELW % 3URYLGHG KRZHYHU WKDW QRWKLQJ LQ WKLV $JUHHPHQW VKDOO SUHYHQW RU UHVWULFW 'HIHQGDQWV IURP RU LQ VROLFLWLQJ FROOHFWLQJ PDLQWDLQLQJ RU GLVWULEXWLQJ DQ\ FULPLQDO KLVWRU\ LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP RU DERXW DQ\ DSSOLFDQWV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKHLU REOLJDWLRQV XQGHU VWDWH DQGRU IHGHUDO ODZ % ,Q WKH HYHQW WKDW 86$ 7UXFN ,QF LQYLWHV &ODVV 0HPEHUV WR UHDSSO\ IRU HPSOR\PHQW ZLWK 86$ 7UXFN ,QF RQ D SULRULW\ EDVLV WKLV $JUHHPHQW VKDOO QRW UHTXLUH 'HIHQGDQWV WR VFUHHQ VXFK &ODVV 0HPEHUV IRU HPSOR\PHQW +RZHYHU QRWKLQJ KHUHLQ UHOLHYHV 'HIHQGDQWV RI WKHLU QRQGLVFULPLQDWLRQ DQG QRQUHWDOLDWLRQ REOLJDWLRQV XQGHU IHGHUDO DQGRU VWDWH ODZ  5HOHDVH $ 5HOHDVH RI &ODVV 0HPEHU &ODLPV %\ RSHUDWLRQ RI WKH HQWU\ RI WKH -XGJPHQW DQG )LQDO $SSURYDO DQG H[FHSW DV WR VXFK ULJKWV RU FODLPV DV PD\ EH FUHDWHG E\ WKLV $JUHHPHQW HDFK &ODVV 0HPEHU ZKR GRHV QRW WLPHO\ RSWRXW VKDOO UHOHDVH


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 43 of 63
'HIHQGDQWV DQG WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH RIILFHUV GLUHFWRUV DJHQWV HPSOR\HHV DWWRUQH\V LQVXUHUV DQG VWRS ORVV LQVXUHUV IURP WKH FODLPV EURXJKW LQ WKH /LWLJDWLRQ DOO GLVSDUDWH LPSDFW FODLPV RI DOOHJHG GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW $IULFDQ $PHULFDQV DQGRU /DWLQRV XQGHU VWDWH PXQLFLSDO DQG FRPPRQ ODZ UHODWHG WR WKH XVH RU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI FULPLQDO KLVWRU\ LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH HPSOR\PHQW RU HPSOR\PHQW WUDLQLQJ RU UHIHUUDO DSSOLFDWLRQV VXEPLWWHG WR 'HIHQGDQWV EHWZHHQ -DQXDU\   DQG 6HSWHPEHU   DV ZHOO DV LQWHUHVW DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG FRVWV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR VXFK FODLPV % 5HOHDVH RI )HHV DQG &RVWV IRU 6HWWOHG 0DWWHUV %\ RSHUDWLRQ RI WKH HQWU\ RI WKH -XGJPHQW DQG )LQDO $SSURYDO DQG H[FHSW DV WR VXFK ULJKWV RU FODLPV DV PD\ EH FUHDWHG E\ WKLV $JUHHPHQW &ODVV &RXQVHO DQG 3ODLQWLII RQ EHKDOI RI WKH &ODVV DQG HDFK LQGLYLGXDO &ODVV 0HPEHU LUUHYRFDEO\ DQG XQFRQGLWLRQDOO\ UHOHDVH DFTXLW DQG IRUHYHU GLVFKDUJH DQ\ FODLP WKDW WKH\ PD\ KDYH DJDLQVW 'HIHQGDQWV IRU DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV RU FRVWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK &ODVV &RXQVHO¶V UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI 3ODLQWLII DQG WKH &ODVV &ODVV &RXQVHO IXUWKHU XQGHUVWDQG DQG DJUHH WKDW DQ\ IHH SD\PHQWV DSSURYHG E\ WKH &RXUW ZLOO EH WKH IXOO ILQDO DQG FRPSOHWH SD\PHQW RI DOO DWWRUQH\V¶ IHHV DQG FRVWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK &ODVV &RXQVHO¶V UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOV & 1R $VVLJQPHQW &ODVV &RXQVHO DQG 3ODLQWLII RQ EHKDOI RI WKH &ODVV DQG HDFK LQGLYLGXDO &ODVV 0HPEHU UHSUHVHQW DQG ZDUUDQW WKDW WKH\ KDYH QRW DVVLJQHG RU WUDQVIHUUHG RU SXUSRUWHG WR DVVLJQ RU WUDQVIHU WR DQ\ SHUVRQ RU HQWLW\ DQ\ FODLP RU DQ\ SRUWLRQ WKHUHRI RU LQWHUHVW WKHUHLQ LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR DQ\ LQWHUHVW LQ WKH /LWLJDWLRQ RU DQ\ UHODWHG DFWLRQ ' 1RQ$GPLVVLRQ RI /LDELOLW\ 7KH 3DUWLHV XQGHUVWDQG DQG DJUHH WKDW WKH SD\PHQW DQG DFFHSWDQFH RI WKH 6HWWOHPHQW 3D\PHQW DQG WKH H[HFXWLRQ RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW DUH WKH UHVXOW RI FRPSURPLVH WKDW WKLV $JUHHPHQW LV HQWHUHG LQWR LQ JRRG IDLWK DQG WKDW WKLV $JUHHPHQW VKDOO QHYHU EH FRQVLGHUHG DW DQ\ WLPH RU IRU DQ\ SXUSRVH DV DQ DGPLVVLRQ RI OLDELOLW\ E\ WKH 'HIHQGDQWV RU WKDW WKH 'HIHQGDQWV DFWHG ZURQJIXOO\ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH 3ODLQWLII RU DQ\ &ODVV 0HPEHU RU DQ\ RWKHU SHUVRQ RU WKDW 3ODLQWLII RU DQ\ &ODVV 0HPEHU KDV DQ\ ULJKWV ZKDWVRHYHU DJDLQVW WKH 'HIHQGDQWV H[FHSW DV RWKHUZLVH H[SUHVVO\ VHW IRUWK LQ WKLV $JUHHPHQW 'HIHQGDQWV VSHFLILFDOO\ GHQ\ DQ\ OLDELOLW\ WR 3ODLQWLII DQG WKH &ODVV 0HPEHUV RQ WKH SDUW RI WKHPVHOYHV WKHLU HPSOR\HHV WKHLU DJHQWV DQG WKHLU SDUHQWV RU DIILOLDWHG FRUSRUDWLRQV DQG HQWLWLHV 7KLV $JUHHPHQW LV D VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQW DQG VKDOO EH LQDGPLVVLEOH LQ HYLGHQFH LQ DQ\ SURFHHGLQJ H[FHSW DQ DFWLRQ RU SURFHHGLQJ WR DSSURYH LQWHUSUHW RU HQIRUFH WKH WHUPV RI WKH $JUHHPHQW


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 44 of 63
 0LVFHOODQHRXV $ &RRSHUDWLRQ %HWZHHQ WKH 3DUWLHV )XUWKHU $FWV 7KH 3DUWLHV VKDOO FRRSHUDWH IXOO\ ZLWK HDFK RWKHU DQG VKDOO XVH WKHLU EHVW HIIRUWV WR REWDLQ WKH &RXUW¶V DSSURYDO RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW DQG DOO RI LWV WHUPV (DFK RI WKH 3DUWLHV XSRQ WKH UHTXHVW RI DQ\ RWKHU SDUW\ DW LWV RZQ FRVW DQG H[SHQVH DJUHHV WR SHUIRUP VXFK IXUWKHU DFWV DQG WR H[HFXWH DQG GHOLYHU VXFK RWKHU GRFXPHQWV DV DUH UHDVRQDEO\ QHFHVVDU\ WR FDUU\ RXW WKH SURYLVLRQV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW % (QWLUH $JUHHPHQW 7KLV $JUHHPHQW FRQVWLWXWHV WKH HQWLUH DJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ WKH 3DUWLHV ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKH VXEMHFW PDWWHU FRQWDLQHG KHUHLQ DQG DOO SULRU DQG FRQWHPSRUDQHRXV QHJRWLDWLRQV DQG XQGHUVWDQGLQJV EHWZHHQ WKH 3DUWLHV VKDOO EH GHHPHG PHUJHG LQWR WKLV $JUHHPHQW & %LQGLQJ (IIHFW 7KLV $JUHHPHQW VKDOO EH ELQGLQJ XSRQ WKH 3DUWLHV DQG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR 3ODLQWLII DQG WKH &ODVV 0HPEHUV ZKR GR QRW H[FOXGH WKHPVHOYHV WKHLU VSRXVHV FKLOGUHQ UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV KHLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV H[HFXWRUV EHQHILFLDULHV FRQVHUYDWRUV DWWRUQH\V DQG DVVLJQV ' $UPV¶ /HQJWK 7UDQVDFWLRQ 0DWHULDOLW\ RI 7HUPV 7KH 3DUWLHV KDYH QHJRWLDWHG DOO WKH WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW DW DUP¶V OHQJWK $OO WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW LQ WKH H[DFW IRUP VHW IRUWK LQ WKLV $JUHHPHQW DUH PDWHULDO WR WKLV $JUHHPHQW DQG KDYH EHHQ UHOLHG XSRQ E\ WKH 3DUWLHV LQ HQWHULQJ LQWR WKLV $JUHHPHQW ( &DSWLRQV 7KH FDSWLRQV RU KHDGLQJV RI WKH VHFWLRQV DQG SDUDJUDSKV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW KDYH EHHQ LQVHUWHG IRU FRQYHQLHQFH RI UHIHUHQFH RQO\ DQG VKDOO KDYH QR HIIHFW XSRQ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI DQ\ SDUW RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW ) &RQVWUXFWLRQ 7KH GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI WKH WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW KDV EHHQ E\ PXWXDO DJUHHPHQW RI WKH 3DUWLHV (DFK SDUW\ SDUWLFLSDWHG MRLQWO\ LQ WKH GUDIWLQJ RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW DUH QRW LQWHQGHG WR EH DQG VKDOO QRW EH FRQVWUXHG DJDLQVW DQ\ SDUW\ E\ YLUWXH RI GUDIWVPDQVKLS * %OXH 3HQFLOLQJ )ROORZLQJ WKH (IIHFWLYH 'DWH LI DQ\ SURYLVLRQ RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW LV KHOG E\ D FRXUW RI FRPSHWHQW MXULVGLFWLRQ WR EH YRLG YRLGDEOH XQODZIXO RU XQHQIRUFHDEOH WKH UHPDLQLQJ SRUWLRQV RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW ZLOO UHPDLQ LQ IXOO IRUFH DQG HIIHFW + *RYHUQLQJ /DZ 7KLV $JUHHPHQW VKDOO LQ DOO UHVSHFWV EH LQWHUSUHWHG HQIRUFHG DQG JRYHUQHG E\ DQG XQGHU WKH ODZV RI WKH 6WDWH RI 3HQQV\OYDQLD ZLWKRXW UHJDUG WR 

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 45 of 63

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 46 of 63

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 47 of 63
Exhibit A

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 48 of 63

CLAIM FORM
MAYER V. DRIVER SOLUTIONS

A. INSTRUCTIONS

1. Please answer all of the questions below truthfully and accurately.

2. Your answers will be kept confidential and will only be used for purposes of determining your eligibility to obtain a settlement award.

3. Your answers may be cross-checked based on information contained in Driver Solutions’ records or verified through other means.

4. If you fail to answer all of the questions below or if you submit false information, you may be ineligible for any payment if the problem is not fixed in a timely manner.

5. Your Claim Form must be postmarked no later than [insert date 60 days from mailing]. Please use the enclosed pre-paid, self-addressed envelope. If you lose the envelope, mail your Claim Form to: [insert address of claims administrator].

B. PERSONAL INFORMATION

6. Please state your name and current address:

Name:

_______________ _______________

First

Middle

Last

Address:

Street Address

________________________________ ________

City

State

Zip

( )

- _______

( )______-____________

Phone Number

Secondary Phone Number

7. For identification purposes, please provide your Social Security Number:_________________.

C. RACE AND ETHNICITY

8. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? Yes, I am of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin. No, I am not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.

- 1 -

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 49 of 63

9. Are you Black or African American? Yes, I am Black or African American. No, I am not Black or African American.

D. CRIMINAL HISTORY

10. My most recent criminal conviction was less than 10 years ago (between 2001 and the present).
YES NO

11. If you answered YES to Question #9, identify the crime(s) for which you were convicted (check all boxes that apply):

Within the last 5 years, I was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). I was convicted of a felony involving use of a motor vehicle. I was convicted of a felony involving death or serious bodily injury to another person. I was convicted of felony theft, robbery, or fraud. (Optional) I checked off one of the boxes above and would like to explain the circumstances of my conviction (attach additional pages if necessary): __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

E. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

12. I was employed for at least one month between January 24, 2009 and the present.

YES NO

13. If you answered YES to Question #11, state your approximate dates of employment (include all dates of employment if you had multiple jobs): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

F. SIGNATURE

I hereby affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the information I have provided on this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and this is the only Claim Form that I have submitted.

Date: ___________

Signature:

- 2 -

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 50 of 63

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 51 of 63
Revised Hiring Criteria (A) Driver Solutions shall not bar any applicant from gaining employment based on a felony conviction that is more than 10 years old or a misdemeanor conviction that is more than 5 years old at the time that the applicant applies, unless such conviction(s) are for crimes involving use of a motor vehicle (DUI/DWI); death; serious bodily injury; theft (burglary, robbery, and fraud); theft of a commercial motor vehicle or its cargo; acts of terrorism; felony sexual crimes of a serious nature; felony distribution/trafficking/manufacturing of drugs; in which case(s), in addition to the applicant’s criminal record history, Driver Solutions may bar such applicant(s) from employment only upon giving equal consideration to the following factors in making such decision(s) (the “Mitigating Factors”):
a. The nature and gravity of the conviction(s); b. Whether there is a direct relationship between the conviction(s) and the specific
duties and responsibilities of the job sought such that the conviction is substantially likely to bear on the applicant’s suitability for the job; c. Any information produced by the applicant in regard to his rehabilitation and good conduct since the date of the conviction(s); d. The age of the applicant at the time of the occurrence of the conviction(s); e. The length of time that has passed since the date of the conviction(s); and f. The nature of the job held or sought. (B) With respect to felony convictions that are less than 10 years old and any misdemeanor convictions that are less than 5 years old at the time that the applicant applies, Driver Solutions shall give equal consideration to the Mitigating Factors in making the decision whether the applicant is suitable for hire. (C) Notwithstanding the foregoing, an applicant may be barred from employment if the applicant was convicted of a felony or felonies and has been incarcerated because of such felony or felonies during the two (2) years preceding his/her application. (D) The application of the Mitigating Factors is subject to and may be altered by future specific federal statutory and/or regulatory guidance.

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 52 of 63
Exhibit C

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 53 of 63

COURT-AUTHORIZED NOTICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

If you applied for a truck driver position with Driver Solutions between January 24, 2009 and September 30, 2010, you could receive a payment from a class action settlement.

A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

x

The Plaintiff, an applicant for an entry-level truck driver job, sued Driver Solutions on

behalf of himself and other applicants claiming that its policy of barring applicants with

criminal backgrounds from obtaining entry-level truck driver positions discriminated

against African Americans and Latinos.

x Driver Solutions has denied discriminating against anyone based on their race, national origin or ethnicity and contends that all applicants have been treated fairly and in compliance with all laws.

x The Plaintiff and Driver Solutions have entered into a settlement to resolve this dispute. Driver Solutions does not admit any wrongdoing, but has agreed to make payment to the individuals who choose to participate in the settlement. The Court has not decided who is right and who is wrong. This settlement was entered into voluntarily between the parties and their attorneys without any findings of liability. You may be eligible to participate in the settlement.

x Your legal rights may be affected, and you have a choice to make now:

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM

This is the only way you get a payment. If you do not submit a Claim Form, you will not be eligible to participate in the settlement and you will release your claims without obtaining any compensation for them. The Claim Form is the yellow document enclosed with this notice.

1 QUESTIONS? CONTACT RACHEL BIEN AT OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVENUE, 29TH FLOOR, NY, NY 10016 DRIVERSOLUTIONSLAWSUIT@OUTTENGOLDEN.COM (212) 245-1000 OR (877) 468-8836

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 54 of 63

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

By excluding yourself, you give up any right to receive a payment from this settlement. You will, however, keep any rights to sue Driver Solutions about the same legal claims in this lawsuit.

OBJECT Write to the Court about why you do not like the settlement.

GO TO A HEARING

Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement.

BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why am I getting this notice? You are getting this notice because Driver Solutions’ records show that you applied for a truck driver position by submitting an online application through its website between January 24, 2009 and September 30, 2010, and that your application was rejected because of a past criminal conviction. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of your rights and options and the deadlines to exercise them under the settlement of this lawsuit. The Court still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. 2. What is this lawsuit about? The Plaintiff – the person who brought the lawsuit – sued Driver Solutions for allegedly rejecting his application for an entry-level truck driver position because of his past criminal conviction. The lawsuit alleges that Driver Solutions’ policy of rejecting applicants with criminal histories has a disparate impact on African American and Latino applicants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit seeks recovery of backpay, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and an injunction preventing Driver Solutions from continuing to enforce its criminal background policy. Driver Solutions denies that it did anything wrong and says that opportunities for hiring and job referral are equally available to all applicants, regardless of applicants’ race, national origin or ethnicity. Driver Solutions says that its policies are clear and that they neither allow, nor condone, discrimination.
2 QUESTIONS? CONTACT RACHEL BIEN AT OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVENUE, 29TH FLOOR, NY, NY 10016 DRIVERSOLUTIONSLAWSUIT@OUTTENGOLDEN.COM (212) 245-1000 OR (877) 468-8836

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 55 of 63
The Honorable J. Curtis Joyner, United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is overseeing this class action. The lawsuit is known as Mayer v. Driver Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 10 Civ. 1939. 3. Why is this a class action? In a class action, one or more individuals called Class Representatives sue on behalf of others who have the same or similar claims. Here, the Plaintiff is the “Class Representative.” The people with the same or similar claims are called “Class Members.” In class actions, one court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who decide to exclude themselves from the Class, as explained in paragraph 10 below. 4. Why is there a settlement? The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiff or Driver Solutions. Both sides believe they would have prevailed at trial, but there was no trial. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way they avoid the cost of a trial, the risk of an uncertain outcome at trial, and the risk that Driver Solutions would not have been able to pay a judgment if the Plaintiff had prevailed at trial; nevertheless, the people affected will get compensation. The Plaintiff and the attorneys for the Class Members think the settlement is best for all involved.
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS – WHAT YOU GET
5. What does the settlement provide? Driver Solutions has agreed to pay money into a settlement fund that will be divided among the Plaintiff and Class Members who submit a Claim Form and who are determined to be eligible to participate in the settlement. The money in the settlement fund will be divided and paid out to participants in the settlement based on the information that Class Members provide in their Claim Forms. The settlement also asks the Court to approve a service payment to the Plaintiff from the settlement fund in the amount of $15,000 in recognition of the many hours of service he gave to the Class by, among other things, supplying documents, sitting for a deposition, and helping the attorneys investigate and prosecute the claims on behalf of the class. 6. How much will my payment be? If you are determined to be eligible to receive a payment from the settlement, the amount of your payment will depend on the information you provide in your Claim Form and the participation rate, i.e., the number of class members who submit claim forms and are determined to be eligible
3 QUESTIONS? CONTACT RACHEL BIEN AT OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVENUE, 29TH FLOOR, NY, NY 10016 DRIVERSOLUTIONSLAWSUIT@OUTTENGOLDEN.COM (212) 245-1000 OR (877) 468-8836

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 56 of 63

to obtain a monetary award. The chart below shows estimates of the average payments that Class Members who submit Claim Forms may receive based on the participation rate:

Participation Rate:

Average Amount:

5% of all class members $909

10% of all class members $454

25% of all class members $181

50% of all class members $90

HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT
7. How can I get a payment? You must submit a Claim Form in order to receive a payment. A claims administrator will review the answers you provide in your Claim Form and determine whether you are eligible to receive a payment and, if so, how much your payment will be. Your completed Claim Form must be postmarked no later than [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF MAILING] and must be mailed to:
[CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS TO BE INSERTED] 8. When will I get my payment? If the claims administrator determines that you are eligible to receive a payment, your check will be mailed within approximately 35 days of the date on which the Court grants final approval of the settlement, unless there is an appeal.

4 QUESTIONS? CONTACT RACHEL BIEN AT OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVENUE, 29TH FLOOR, NY, NY 10016 DRIVERSOLUTIONSLAWSUIT@OUTTENGOLDEN.COM (212) 245-1000 OR (877) 468-8836

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 57 of 63
9. What if I do not submit a Claim Form? If you do not submit a Claim Form and do not exclude yourself as explained in paragraph 10, you will not receive a payment and will give up any right to sue, continue to sue, or be a party of any other lawsuit against Driver Solutions with respect to the legal issues in the lawsuit. It also means that all of the Court’s orders will apply to you and legally bind you.
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
You may exclude yourself from class. The process of excluding yourself is also sometimes referred to as “opting out.” If you ask to be excluded from the settlement, you will not receive a settlement payment, and you cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. You will also keep any rights to sue Driver Solutions about the legal claims alleged in the lawsuit. 10. How do I exclude myself from the settlement? To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by First Class U.S. mail stating, “I elect to exclude myself from the settlement in Mayer v. Driver Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 10 Civ. 1939.” Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, and your signature. Your exclusion request must be received no later than [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF MAILING] and must be mailed to:
[CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS TO BE INSERTED]
11. What am I giving up if I do not exclude myself? Unless you exclude yourself, you will remain a Class Member. That means that you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be a party of any other lawsuit against Driver Solutions with respect to the legal issues in the lawsuit. It also means that all of the Court’s orders will apply to you and legally bind you.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You can tell the Court that you don’t agree with the settlement or some part of it.
5 QUESTIONS? CONTACT RACHEL BIEN AT OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVENUE, 29TH FLOOR, NY, NY 10016 DRIVERSOLUTIONSLAWSUIT@OUTTENGOLDEN.COM (212) 245-1000 OR (877) 468-8836

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 58 of 63
12. How do I tell the Court that I object to the settlement? You can object to the settlement agreement if you don’t like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter via U.S. Mail stating that you object to the settlement agreement in Mayer v. Driver Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 10 Civ. 1939, and stating the reasons why you object. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, and signature. Any objections must be received by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF MAILING], and mailed to:
[CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS TO BE INSERTED] 13. What’s the difference between objecting to the settlement and excluding myself from it? Objecting is simply telling the Court that you don’t like something about the settlement. You can object only if you do not exclude yourself from the class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you don’t want to be part of the class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
14. Do I have a lawyer in this case? Yes. The Court has decided that the lawyers at the law firms of Outten & Golden LLP and Community Legal Services of Philadelphia are qualified to represent you and all of the other Class Members. These lawyers have been designated as “Class Counsel” in this lawsuit. More information about the law firms, their practices, and their lawyers’ experience are available at www.outtengolden.com and www.clsphila.org. 15. How will the lawyers be paid? The Plaintiff has entered into a retainer agreement with Class Counsel. Under the agreement, Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve up to one-third of the settlement amount as their attorneys’ fees. The fees will pay Class Counsel for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement. Class Counsel will also ask the Court to approve the reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs in the amount of $10,000. You may ask for a copy of the retainer agreement by calling or writing Class Counsel at the telephone number or address below.
6 QUESTIONS? CONTACT RACHEL BIEN AT OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVENUE, 29TH FLOOR, NY, NY 10016 DRIVERSOLUTIONSLAWSUIT@OUTTENGOLDEN.COM (212) 245-1000 OR (877) 468-8836

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 59 of 63
THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING
The Court will hold a fairness hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you don’t have to. 16. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement agreement? The Court will hold a fairness hearing at [INSERT TIME] on [INSERT DATE] at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA before Judge J. Curtis Joyner in Courtroom ____. At the fairness hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are any objections, the Court will consider them at that time. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement. We do not know how long the Court's decision will take. 17. Do I have to come to the fairness hearing? No, even if you filed an objection, Class Counsel will represent you at the hearing. Of course, you are welcome to attend (at your own expense) if you so desire. The Court will consider any objections received in a timely manner, even if the individual who sent in the objection does not appear at the fairness hearing. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend the fairness hearing, but it is not necessary. 18. May I speak at the fairness hearing? You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the fairness hearing. To do so, you must send a letter stating, “Notice of Intention to Appear in Mayer v. Driver Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 10 Civ. 1939.” Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, and signature. Your Notice of Intention to Appear must be postmarked no later than [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF MAILING], and mailed to:
[CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS TO BE INSERTED] Again, you cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the settlement agreement.
7 QUESTIONS? CONTACT RACHEL BIEN AT OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVENUE, 29TH FLOOR, NY, NY 10016 DRIVERSOLUTIONSLAWSUIT@OUTTENGOLDEN.COM (212) 245-1000 OR (877) 468-8836

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 60 of 63
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
19. Are there more details about the settlement? You can obtain more information about the settlement or obtain a copy of the settlement agreement by contacting Class Counsel at:
Rachel Bien Outten & Golden LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016
212-245-1000 DriverSolutionsLawsuit@outtengolden.com If you call or write, you should refer to the Driver Solutions case. DATED: [INSERT MONTH] ___, 2012
8 QUESTIONS? CONTACT RACHEL BIEN AT OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVENUE, 29TH FLOOR, NY, NY 10016 DRIVERSOLUTIONSLAWSUIT@OUTTENGOLDEN.COM (212) 245-1000 OR (877) 468-8836

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 61 of 63
Exhibit D

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 62 of 63

CLAIM FORM
MAYER V. DRIVER SOLUTIONS

A. INSTRUCTIONS

1. Please answer all of the questions below truthfully and accurately.

2. Your answers will be kept confidential and will only be used for purposes of determining your eligibility to obtain a settlement award.

3. Your answers may be cross-checked based on information contained in Driver Solutions’ records or verified through other means.

4. If you fail to answer all of the questions below or if you submit false information, you may be ineligible for any payment if the problem is not fixed in a timely manner.

5. Your Claim Form must be postmarked no later than [insert date 60 days from mailing]. Please use the enclosed pre-paid, self-addressed envelope. If you lose the envelope, mail your Claim Form to: [insert address of claims administrator].

B. PERSONAL INFORMATION

6. Please state your name and current address:

Name:

_______________ _______________

First

Middle

Last

Address:

Street Address

________________________________ ________

City

State

Zip

( )

- _______

( )______-____________

Phone Number

Secondary Phone Number

7. For identification purposes, please provide your Social Security Number:_________________.

C. RACE AND ETHNICITY

8. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? Yes, I am of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin. No, I am not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.

- 1 -

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 47-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 63 of 63

9. Are you Black or African American? Yes, I am Black or African American. No, I am not Black or African American.

D. CRIMINAL HISTORY

10. My most recent criminal conviction was less than 10 years ago (between 2001 and the present).
YES NO

11. If you answered YES to Question #9, identify the crime(s) for which you were convicted (check all boxes that apply):

Within the last 5 years, I was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). I was convicted of a felony involving use of a motor vehicle. I was convicted of a felony involving death or serious bodily injury to another person. I was convicted of felony theft, robbery, or fraud. (Optional) I checked off one of the boxes above and would like to explain the circumstances of my conviction (attach additional pages if necessary): __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

E. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

12. I was employed for at least one month between January 24, 2009 and the present.

YES NO

13. If you answered YES to Question #11, state your approximate dates of employment (include all dates of employment if you had multiple jobs): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

F. SIGNATURE

I hereby affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the information I have provided on this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and this is the only Claim Form that I have submitted.

Date: ___________

Signature:

- 2 -

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


JEFFREY MAYER., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

lO-CV-1939 (JCJ)

DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, and C&S ACQUISITION, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FINAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, FINAL APPROVAL OF THE 
 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS' FEES 
 AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 

CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARD 

Plaintiff Jeffrey Mayer and the class are several thousand Mrican American and Latino
applicants for entry-level truck driver positions whose applications were rejected based on their
criminal histories.
On April 30, 2010, Mayer filed a class action complaint, asserting a disparate impact claim
under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") on behalfof a class of African
American and Latino job applicants. He alleged that Defendants' policy of denying placements to
truck driver applicants with criminal histories had a disparate impact on African Americans and
Latinos in violation ofTitle VII.
Prior to settling the lawsuit, the parties engaged in motion practice and significant informal
and formal discovery. The parties reached a settlement on January 17, 2012, involving monetary

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 2 of 10
relief of $475,000 and injunctive relief. The injunctive relief requires Defendants to modify the criminal background hiring policy that they apply to applicants. Under the revised policy, Defendants cannot bar applicants with felonies that are more than 10 years old or misdemeanors that are more than 5 years old, unless they are for certain specific crimes, which are identified in Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement. For those specifically designated crimes, as well as for all felony and misdemeanor convictions that are less than 10 years old or less than 5 years old,
respectively, Defendants must consider mitigating factors in addition to the criminal history. See The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Policy Statement on the Issue of Conviction Records under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of1964, available at:
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/convictl.html (last visited July 10,2012). On February 13,2012, this Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement,
conditionally certifying the settlement class, and authorizing notice to be issued to class members. ECFNo.48.
On February 27, 2012, a third-party claims administrator sent notices to all class members informing them of their right to opt out of or object to the settlement and their right to submit a claim form to obtain a monetary recovery. No class members objected to the terms of the settlement and no class members requested exclusion.
On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff moved for Final Certification of Settlement Class and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Motion for Final Approval"). The same day, Plaintiff also moved for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses ("Motion for Attorneys' Fees") and for a Class Representative Service Award ("Motion for Service Award").
The Court held a fairness hearing on August 15,2012. Having considered the Motion for Final Approval, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, the Motion for Service Award, the supporting
2 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 3 of 10
declarations, the arguments presented at the August 15,2012 fairness hearing, and the complete record in this matter, for good cause shown,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: L Final Approval of Settlement
1. The Court grants final approval of the settlement memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Settlement Agreement"), attached to the Declaration of Rachel Bien, as Exhibit B.
2. The Court concludes that the settlement meets the requirements for settlement approval under Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975).
3. "[T]he probable cost, in both time and money, of continued litigation" weighs in favor of resolution. See Erie Cnty. Retirees Ass'n, v. Cnty. ofErie, Pennsylvania, 192 F. Supp. 2d 369, 373 (W.D. Pa. 2002) (citing In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Dab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 785 (3d Cir. 1995».
4. The reaction of the class to news of the settlement has been positive. In re Prudential Ins. Co. ofAm. Sales Practices Litig, 148 F.3d 283,317 (3rd Cir. 1998). None of the class members objected to the settlement or opted out of it, and almost 250 individuals submitted valid claim forms. See asian v. Law Offices ofMitchell N. Kay, 232 F. Supp. 2d 436, 442 (RD. Pa.2002).
5. The parties have completed enough discovery to have "an adequate appreciation of the merits of the case before negotiating." In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516, 537 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
6. The risks of proceeding with the litigation, including obtaining class status, favor resolution. See In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201,237-39 (3d Cir. 2001). In addition, the
3 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 4 of 10
$475,000 monetary amount and injunctive relief that the settlement provides represent a good
value given the attendant risks oflitigation. See In re AT&T Corp., 455 F.3d 160, 169 (3d Cir. 2006)~ In re Greenwich Pharm. Sees. Litig., No. 92 Civ. 3071, 1995 WL 251293, at *5 (E.D. Pa.
Apr. 26, 1995). 7. The settlement alleviates any uncertainty about Defendants' financial condition.
See Bonett v. Educ. Debt Servs., Inc., No. 01 Civ. 6528, 2003 WL 21658267, at *7 (E.D. Pa.
May 9, 2003).
n. Dissemination of Notice
8. The Court-approved notice and claim form was sent by first-class mail to each class member at his or her last known address (with re-mailing of returned notices). The Court finds that the notice fairly and adequately advised class members of the terms of the settlement, as well as their right to opt out of the class, to object to the settlement, to appear at the fairness hearing, and to submit a claim form. Class members were provided the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Court further finds that the notice and its distribution comported with all constitutional requirements, including those of due process.
m. Final Certification of the Proposed Rule 23 Settlement Class
9. The Court grants final certification of the class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), for settlement purposes:
All Latino and African American individuals who submitted applications to Defendants for a placement with one of the trucking companies for which Defendants recruit inexperienced truck drivers and whom Defendants rejected based on their criminal background between January 24,2009 and September 30, 2010. 10. Plaintiff meets all of the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
4

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 5 of 10
11. Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R Civ. P. 23(a)(1) because there are over potential 3,000
class members and, thus, joinder is impracticable. See Jones v. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., No. 05
Civ. 5600,2007 WL 2085357, at *3 (D.N.I. July 16,2007) ("classes of close to one hundred
members are sufficient") (citing Eisenberg v. Gannon, 766 F.2d 770, 785-86 (3d Cir. 1985)).
12. Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R Civ. P. 23(a)(2) because Plaintiff and the class members share common issues offact and law, including whether Defendants' criminal background hiring policy had a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos and whether it was justified by
business necessity. See Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 227 (3d. Cir. 2001) (commonality
satisfied where "at least one common question of fact or law exists among the putative class"). 13. The alleged Title VII violation - involving common operative facts stemming from
a company policy that affected the class members in the same way - is sufficient to meet Rule
23(a)'s commonality factor. See Lanning v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 176 F.RD. 132,
150-51 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (commonality satisfied where "[t]he legality of SEPTA's conduct is central to the claims of all the plaintiffs and prospective class members").
14. Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R Civ. P. 23(a)(3) because Plaintiff's and the class members' claims arise from the same course of events - they all applied for entry-level truck driver placements and were denied those placements as a result of Defendants' criminal background hiring policy. They also make the same legal arguments in support of their claims­ that Defendants' criminal background policy had a disparate impact on African Americans and
Latinos and was not justified by business necessity. See Lanning, 176 F.RD. at 151 (typicality
satisfied because "[t]he legal claims of the named plaintiffs and those of the proposed class members are identical" and "the factual circumstances from which the claims of the named
plaintiffs and proposed class members arose are strikingly similar"); Webb, 78 F.RD. at 652
5 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 6 of 10
(typicality satisfied where plaintiffs were all subject to the same discriminatory personnel policies). 15. Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R Civ. P. 23(a)(4) because there is no evidence that the
Plaintiff's and the class members' interests are at odds. See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor,
521 U.S. 591,625 (1997) ("The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts
of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent."); E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977) ("[A] class representative must be part of the
class and 'possess the same interest and suffer the same injury' as the class members.") (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, Plaintiff's counsel are competent and well-versed in this
area of law. See, e.g., Easterlingv. Connecticut, Dept. o/Correction, 265 F.RD. 45, 51 n.2 (D. Conn. 2010), modified sub nom. Easterling v. Connecticut Dept. o/Correction, No. 08 Civ. 826,2011 WL 5864829 (D. Conn. Nov. 22,2011); Ralston v. Zats, No. 94 Civ. 3723, 2000 WL
1781590, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2000). 16. Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants
applied the criminal background policy to all members ofthe class, and thus the class as a whole shares the same interest in obtaining the injunctive relief provided by the settlement - prospective
changes to the policy. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2557 (2011) ("The
key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature ofthe injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted­ the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none ofthem.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
17. Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages satisfies Rule 23(b)(3). Common factual allegations and a common legal theory predominate over any factual or legal variations among
class members. See Easterling, 2011 WL 5864829, at *8; United States v. City ofNew York, 276
F.RD. 22,48-49 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).
6 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 7 of 10
18. Class adjudication of this case is superior to individual adjudication because it will conserve judicial resources and is more efficient for class members, particularly those who lack the resources to bring their claims individually. See Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610,632 (3d Cir. 1996). IV. Award of Fees and Costs to Class Counsel
19. On February 13,2012, the Court appointed Outten & Golden LLP and Community Legal Services, Inc. as Class Counsel because they met all of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
20. Class Counsel did substantial work identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and settling Plaintiff's and the Class Members' claims.
21. Class Counsel have substantial experience prosecuting and settling employment class actions and are well-versed in employment law and in class action law. See, e.g., Westerfield v. Washington Mutual Bank, Nos. 06 Civ. 2817, 08 Civ. 287, 2009 WL 6490084, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 26,2009) ("Courts have repeatedly found [Outten & Golden] to be adequate class counsel in employment law class actions."); Ralston, 2000 WL 1781590, at *4 (appointing Community Legal Services as class counsel and describing them as "well-respected, with experience in class action litigation").
22. The work that Class Counsel have performed in litigating and settling this case demonstrates their commitment to the class and to representing the class's interests. Class Counsel have committed substantial resources to prosecuting this case.
7 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 8 of 10
23. The Court finds that the factors set forth in Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 195 n.l (3d Cir. 2000), and In re Prudential Insurance Company America Sales Practice Litigation Agent Actions, 148 F3d 283, 336-40 (3d Cir. 1998), weigh in favor of
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees in the amount of$158,333.33, or one-third of the fund. 24. The Court finds that the amount offees requested is fair and reasonable using the
"percentage-of-recovery" method, which is favored in this Circuit. In re Diet Drugs Prod. Liability Litig., 582 F.3d 524, 540 (3d Cir. 2009); Bredbenner v. Liberty Travel, Inc., No. 09
Civ. 905, 2011 WL 1344745, at *19 (D.N.J. Apr. 8,2011). 25. Class Counsel's request for one-third of the fund is reasonable and well within the
range offee awards in similar cases. See Stag; v. Nat'I R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 03 Civ. 5702, 2012 WL 2581052, at *4 (E.D. Pa. July 3,2012); Bredbenner, 2011 WL 1344745, at *21; Brumleyv. Camin Cargo Control, Inc., Nos. 08 Civ. 1798,09 Civ. 6128, & 10 Civ. 2461, 2012 WL 1019337, *12 (D.N.J. Mar. 26,2012); Erie Cnty. Retirees Assoc. v. Cnty. ofErie, 192 F.
Supp. 2d 369,382-83 (W.D. Pa. 2002). 26. The time and effort that Class Counsel devoted to this case, more than 1,455 hours
of attorney, paralegal, and staff time over two years weigh in favor of the requested fees. See Chemi v. Champion Mortg., No. 05 Civ. 1238,2009 WL 1470429, at *12 (D.N.J. May 26,
2009). 27. The Court also awards Class Counsel reimbursement of their litigation expenses in
the amount of $10,000, which the Court deems to be reasonable. In re Safety Components, Inc. Sec. Litig., 166 F. Supp. 2d 72, 108 (D.N.J. 2001) ("Counsel for a class action is entitled to
reimbursement of expenses that were adequately documented and reasonably and appropriately incurred in the prosecution of the class action.")
8 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 9 of 10
28. The attorneys' fees awarded and the amount in reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses shall be paid from the settlement fund.
v. Senrice Award
29. The Court finds reasonable the requested service award of$15,000 to Plaintiff in recognition of the services that he provided to the class, including being deposed, producing documents, and attending the mediation, and the risks he incurred. See In re Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Fin. Consultant Litig., No. 06 Civ. 3202,2009 WL 2137224, at *12 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2009); Godshall v. Franklin Mint Co., No. 01 Civ. 6539, 2004 WL 2745890, at *6, 8 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 1,2004). This amount shall be paid from the settlement fund. VI. Class Action Settlement Procedure
30. The "Effective Date" of the settlement will be 30 days after the entry of this Order if no party appeals this Order. If a party appeals this Order, the "Effective Date" will be the day after all appeals are finally decided.
31. Within 5 days of the Effective Date, the claims administrator will distribute the settlement fund by making the following payments:
a. Paying Class Counsel $158,333.33 in attorneys' fees and $10,000 in costs; b. Paying the claims administrator's fees; c. Paying Plaintiff a service award in the amount of$15,000; d. Paying the remainder ofthe fund to approved claimants in accordance with
the allocation formula set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 32. The Court retains jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement. The parties shall abide by all other terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order.
9 


Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 54 Filed 08/17/12 Page 10 of 10

33. Upon the Effective Date, this litigation shall be dismissed with prejudice.

34. Upon the Effective Date, all members of the Class who have not excluded

themselves from the settlement shall be permanently enjoined from pursuing and/or seeking to

reopen claims that have been releas~rsuant to the settlement.

lie, It is so ORDERED this day of

2012.

10 


 
 Case: 2:10-cv-1939 As of: 09/17/2017 08:47 PM EDT 1 of 8
STAYED,CLOSED,SPECIAL
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−01939−JCJ

MAYER v. DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC. et al Assigned to: HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Date Terminated: 08/17/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Employment Jurisdiction: Federal Question

JEFFREY MAYER INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

represented by ADAM T. KLEIN Outten & Golden LLP 685 Third Avenue 25th Floor New York New York, NY 10017 212−245−1000 Email: atk@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BRENDAN PATRICK LYNCH COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES 1424 CHESTNUT ST PHILA, PA 19102 215−981−3713 Email: blynch@clsphila.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JANET F. GINZBERG COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES 1424 CHESTNUT ST. PHILA., PA 19102 Email: jginzberg@clsphila.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUSTIN SWARTZ OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue 25th Floor NEW YORK, NY 10017 212−245−1000 Fax: 646−509−2060 Email: jms@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL W. MOLLICA OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 203 NORTH LASALLE ST STE 2100 CHICAGO, IL 60601 312−263−0272 Email: pwmollica@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RACHEL M. BIEN OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue 25th Floor NEW YORK, NY 10017 212−245−1000 Fax: 646−509−2060

Case: 2:10-cv-1939 As of: 09/17/2017 08:47 PM EDT 2 of 8
Email: rmb@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMUEL R. MILLER OUTTEN GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVE 29TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10016 212−245−1000 Email: smiller@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SANDRA E. PULLMAN OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 PARK AVE 29TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10016 212−245−1000 Email: spullman@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC.
Defendant DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC
Defendant DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC

represented by JACQUELINE K. GALLAGHER Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney P.C. TWO LIBERTY PLACE 50 SOUTH 16TH STREET SUITE 3200 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−665−3932 Fax: 215−665−8760 Email: jacqueline.gallagher@bipc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACOB M. SITMAN FITZPATRICK LENTZ & BUBBA PC 4001 SCHOOLHOUSE LN POBOX 219 CENTER VALLEY, PA 18034−0219 610−797−9000 Email: jsitman@flblaw.com TERMINATED: 08/17/2012
represented by JACQUELINE K. GALLAGHER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACOB M. SITMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2012
represented by JACQUELINE K. GALLAGHER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACOB M. SITMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2012

Case: 2:10-cv-1939 As of: 09/17/2017 08:47 PM EDT 3 of 8

Defendant C&S ACQUISITION, INC.

represented by JACQUELINE K. GALLAGHER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACOB M. SITMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2012

Date Filed 04/30/2010
04/30/2010 05/07/2010 05/13/2010 05/13/2010 05/13/2010 05/13/2010 05/14/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against C&S ACQUISITION, INC., DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 021888.), filed by JEFFREY MAYER. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Case Management Track Form, # 3 Designation Form)(ks, ) Modified on 5/21/2010 (ks, ). (Entered: 04/30/2010)
4 Summonses Issued as to C&S ACQUISITION, INC., DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC. Forwarded To: Counsel on 4/30/10 (ks, ) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by BRENDAN PATRICK LYNCH on behalf of JEFFREY MEYER (LYNCH, BRENDAN) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
3 APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE BY SAMUEL R. MILLER FOR PLAINTIFF JEFFREY MAYER. $40.00 FEE PAID, RECEIPT NUMBER: 22670. (sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
4 APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE BY JUSTIN SWARTZ FOR PLAINTIFF JEFFREY MAYER. $40.00 FEE PAID, RECEIPT NUMBER: 22673. (sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
5 APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE BY RACHEL M. BIEN FOR PLAINTIFF JEFFREY MAYER. $40.00 FEE PAID, RECEIPT NUMBER: 22671. (sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
6 APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE BY ADAM T. KLEIN FOR PLAINTIFF JEFFREY MAYER. $40.00 FEE PAID, RECEIPT NUMBER: 22672. (sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
7 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Karma Hamm re: served Complaint and Summons upon Beth Sutton by Personal on May 12, 2010 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Service − Driver Solutions LLC, # 2 Affidavit Service − Driver Holdings LLC, # 3 Affidavit Service − C&S Acquisition)(LYNCH, BRENDAN) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
8 ORDER THAT ATTORNEY SAMUEL R. MILLER'S APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE FOR JEFFREY MAYER IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 5/17/2010. 5/19/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
9 ORDER THAT ATTORNEY JUSTIN SWARTZ'S APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE FOR JEFFREY MAYER IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 5/17/2010. 5/19/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
10 ORDER THAT ATTORNEY RACHEL M. BIEN'S APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE FOR JEFFREY MAYER IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 5/17/2010. 5/19/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
11 ORDER THAT ATTORNEY ADAM T. KLEIN'S APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE FOR JEFFREY MAYER IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 5/17/2010. 5/19/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/19/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1939 As of: 09/17/2017 08:47 PM EDT 4 of 8

06/02/2010 06/03/2010 06/17/2010 07/02/2010 07/20/2010
07/23/2010 07/27/2010 08/04/2010 08/12/2010 10/08/2010 11/05/2010 11/09/2010

12 NOTICE of Appearance by JACOB M. SITMAN on behalf of C&S ACQUISITION, INC., DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC with Declaration of Service(SITMAN, JACOB) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
13 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE TIME BY WHICH THE DEFENDANTS MAY ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT IS EXTENDED BY 30 DAYS TO 7/2/2010. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 6/2/2010. 6/4/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
14 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by C&S ACQUISITION, INC., DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC.(SITMAN, JACOB) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
15 First MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by C&S ACQUISITION, INC., DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC.Memorandum, Proposed Order and Declarations. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration, # 2 Affidavit Declaration, # 3 Affidavit Declaration)(GALLAGHER, JACQUELINE) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
16 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY AND EXTENDING PLAINTIFF'S DEADLINE TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS.PLAINTIFF'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION IS ADJOURNED SINE DIE TO AFFORD PLAINTIFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN LIMITED JURISDICTIOINAL DISCOVERY; THE PARTIES WILL SUBMIT TO THE COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL A JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE NO LATER THAN 7/30/2010. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 7/19/2010. 7/20/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
17 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against C&S ACQUISITION, INC., DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC, filed by JEFFREY MAYER. EXHIBIT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
18 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Joseph Marano re: served Amended Complaint upon Jacqueline Gallagher and Jacob Sitman by Personal Service on 7/23/2010 (BIEN, RACHEL) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
19 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH DEFENDANTS MAY ANSWER, PLEAD OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS EXTENDED BY SEVEN DAYS TO 8/13/2010. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 8/3/2010. 8/5/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
20 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER SHALL BE STAYED FOR A PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY 60 DAYS UNTIL 10/5/2010. ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 8/12/2010. 8/12/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
21 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER SHALL BE STAYED FOR A PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS UNTIL 11/5/2010. ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 10/7/2010. 10/12/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(kk, ) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
22 NOTICE of Hearing: STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 11/22/2010 AT 3:00 PM IN JUDGE CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER.(sc, ) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
23 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TEMPORARY STAY OF PROCEEDINGS UNTIL 11/19/2010. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 11/9/2010. 11/9/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 11/09/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1939 As of: 09/17/2017 08:47 PM EDT 5 of 8

11/24/2010
11/24/2010 01/21/2011 02/11/2011 02/16/2011 03/02/2011
03/09/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/23/2011

24 ORDER THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER SHALL CONTINUE TO BE STAYED FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF 60 DAYS OR UNTIL 1/21/2011, DURING WHICH TIME THE PARTIES SHALL ENGAGE IN COLUNTARY, INFORMAL DISCOVERY AND CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS TOWARD RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IF THIS MATTER HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY AND FINALLY RESOLVED BY 1/21/2010, THE PARTIES SHALL FORTHWITH FILE ANY MOTIONS WHICH THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 11/22/2010. 11/24/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
25 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER: Status Conference held on 11/22/2010. (sg, ) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
26 SCHEDULING ORDER, PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE ANY MOTION TO ADD OR JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS BY 2/16/2011. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 1/20/2011. 1/21/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
27 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS FIRST MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 2/9/2011. 2/11/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
28 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Amended Complaint and to Join Defendants USA Truck, Inc. and PAM Transportation Services, Inc., MOTION for Joinder filed by JEFFREY MAYER.Memorandum, Declaration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Rachel Bien in Support of Motion to Amend)(BIEN, RACHEL) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
29 Cross MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Cross−Motion to Dismiss; Proposed Order; Declarations of Service filed by C&S ACQUISITION, INC., DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC.Memorandum Declaration Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Affidavit Affidavit of Michael Benkert, # 4 Affidavit Affidavit of Scott Loveday, # 5 Affidavit Affidavit of Clark Gray)(GALLAGHER, JACQUELINE) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 Cross MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Cross−Motion to Dismiss; Proposed Order; Declarations filed by JEFFREY MAYER.Memorandum, Declaration, Certificate of Service.(BIEN, RACHEL) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
31 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS DEADLINE TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS' CROSS−MOTION TO DISMISS IS TEMPORARILY EXTENDED UNTIL 3/31/2011 BY WHICH DATE THIS COURT SHALL BE ABLE TO CONSIDER PLAINTIFF'S FORMAL MOTION TO EXTEND TIME. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 3/21/2011. 3/22/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 29 Cross MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Cross−Motion to Dismiss; Proposed Order; Declarations. RESPONSES DUE BY 3/31/2011. (sg, ) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
32 RESPONSE in Opposition re 30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 Cross MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defen MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 Cross MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defen Memorandum of Law,

Case: 2:10-cv-1939 As of: 09/17/2017 08:47 PM EDT 6 of 8

03/25/2011 03/31/2011
03/31/2011
04/01/2011 04/11/2011 05/10/2011 05/18/2011 06/01/2011

and Declaration of Michael Benkert filed by C&S ACQUISITION, INC., DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC, DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC., DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC. (GALLAGHER, JACQUELINE) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
33 REPLY to Response to Motion re 30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 Cross MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defen MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 Cross MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defen filed by JEFFREY MAYER. (BIEN, RACHEL) (Entered: 03/25/2011)
34 REPLY in Further Support re 28 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Amended Complaint and to Join Defendants USA Truck, Inc. and PAM Transportation Services, Inc. MOTION for JoinderFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Amended Complaint and to Join Defendants USA Truck, Inc. and PAM Transportation Services, Inc., 29 Cross MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Cross−Motion to Dismiss; Proposed Order; Declarations and Opposition to Cross Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed by JEFFREY MAYER, Certificate of Service. (BIEN, RACHEL) Modified on 4/1/2011 (lisad, ). (Entered: 03/31/2011)
35 Declaration in Support re 28 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Amended Complaint and to Join Defendants USA Truck, Inc. and PAM Transportation Services, Inc. MOTION for JoinderFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Amended Complaint and to Join Defendants USA Truck, Inc. and PAM Transportation Services, Inc., 29 Cross MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Cross−Motion to Dismiss; Proposed Order; Declarations and Opposition to Cross Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed by JEFFREY MAYER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(BIEN, RACHEL) Modified on 4/1/2011 (lisad, ). (Entered: 03/31/2011)
36 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION/REPLY IS GRANTED AND THE TIME WITHIN WHICH PLAINTIFF HAS TO FILE HIS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS CROSS−MOTION TO DIMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS EXTENDED TO 5/31/2011, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 3/31/2011. 4/1/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
37 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS LETTER REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE OPPOSITION BRIEF WHICH HE FILIED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS, IS GRANTED AND BOTH PARTIES SHALL BE GIVEN LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS BY 6/17/2011. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 4/11/2011. 4/12/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
38 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Paul Mollica filed by JEFFREY MAYER.Certificate of Counsel, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Certificate of Service)(LYNCH, BRENDAN)$40.00 fee paid, Receipt no. 42643. Modified on 5/10/2011 (sg, ). (Entered: 05/10/2011)
39 ORDER granting 38 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE OF PAUL W. MOLLICA AS CO−COUNSEL WITH JANET GINZBERG ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 5/16/2011.5/18/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
40 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE AS OUTLINED HEREIN. DISCOVERY DUE BY 6/22/2011. MOTIONS DUE BY 7/18/2011. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 6/1/2011. 6/2/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, )

Case: 2:10-cv-1939 As of: 09/17/2017 08:47 PM EDT 7 of 8

06/07/2011 06/10/2011 07/08/2011 09/29/2011 11/03/2011
12/14/2011 01/17/2012 02/13/2012
07/16/2012 07/16/2012 07/16/2012

(Entered: 06/02/2011)
41 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Sandra E. Pullman, Esq. filed by JEFFREY MAYER.Certificate of Service.(LYNCH, BRENDAN) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
42 ORDER THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED AND SANDRA E. PULLMAN, ESQUIRE IS ADMITTED TO PRATICE PRO HAC VICE BEFORE THIS COURT AS CO−COUNSEL WITH JANET GINZBERG, ESQUIRE ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACTION ONLY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 6/8/2011. 6/10/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
43 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT LEAVE FOR THE PARTIES TO ENGAGE IN PRIVATE MEDIATION IS HEREBY GRANTED. IF THE CASE DOES NOT SETTLE THROUGH MEDIATION, DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE ANY RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER VENUE NO LATER THAN 9/30/2011. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 7/8/2011. 7/8/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
44 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING MEDIATION AND REVISED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 9/29/2011. 9/29/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
45 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS CROSS MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. PLAINTIFF IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT HIS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL BY 12/15/2011. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 11/3/2011. 11/3/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 11/03/2011)
46 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS REQUEST IS GRANTED AND THE TIME WITHIN WHICH PLAINTIFF HAS TO SUBMIT HIS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL IS EXTENDED TO 1/17/2012. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 12/14/2011. 12/14/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
47 MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel, and Approval of the Proposed Notice of Settlement, and Class Action Settlement Procedure filed by JEFFREY MAYER.Memorandum, Brief, Declaration, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(BIEN, RACHEL) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
48 ORDER THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MEMORIALIZED IN THE JOINT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE ATTACHED AS EHXIBIT "B" TO THE DECLARATION OF RACHEL BIEN IS PRELIMINARILY APPROVED. ETC.. A FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING IS SCHEDULED IN THIS MATTER FOR 10:00 AM ON WEDNESDAY 8/15/2012, BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN COURTROOM 17A. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 2/13/2012. 2/14/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
49 MOTION for Settlement Final Certification of the Settlement Class and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by JEFFREY MAYER.Memorandum, Declaration, and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(BIEN, RACHEL) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
50 MOTION for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses filed by JEFFREY MAYER.Memorandum, Declaration, and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(BIEN, RACHEL) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
51 MOTION for Approval of Class Representative Service Award filed by JEFFREY MAYER.Memorandum, Declaration, and Certificate of Service.(BIEN, RACHEL) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1939 As of: 09/17/2017 08:47 PM EDT 8 of 8

08/17/2012 08/17/2012 08/17/2012

52 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by JACOB M. SITMAN on behalf of All Defendants (SITMAN, JACOB) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER: Settlement Conference held on 8/15/2012. Court Reporter: SHARON HALL. (sg, ) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
54 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FINAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARD AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 8/16/2012. 8/20/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 48 Filed 02/13/12 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY MAYER, individually and : CIVIL ACTION

on behalf of all others

:

similarly situated

:

: NO. 10-CV-1939

vs.

:

:

DRIVER SOLUTIONS, INC.,

:

DRIVER SOLUTIONS, LLC.,

:

DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC., and

:

C & S ACQUISITION, INC.

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this

13th

day of February, 2012, upon

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of

Settlement (Doc. No. 47) and it appearing to the Court that the

Motion is uncontested and now following review of the Joint

Stipulation of Settlement and Release executed by the parties on

January 17, 2012, the proposed Claim Form, Revised Hiring

Criteria and Court-Authorized Notice annexed to the within

Motion, this Court hereby finds the following:

1. Plaintiff meets all of the requirements for class

certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) - (4) because:

a. There are potentially thousands of class members thus

making joinder impracticable. See, e.g., Eisenberg v. Gagnon,

766 F.2d 770, 785-786 (3d Cir. 1985)(“The allegation of more than

90 geographically dispersed plaintiffs met the numerosity

requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)”).

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 48 Filed 02/13/12 Page 2 of 6
b. Plaintiff and the class members share common issues of fact and law, such as whether Defendants’ criminal background hiring policies and practices had a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos and whether it was in fact justified by business necessity. See, e.g., Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 227 (3d Cir. 2001)(“The commonality requirement will be satisfied if the named plaintiffs share at least one question of fact or law with the grievances of the prospective class”(citing Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56 (3d Cir. 2001)).
c. Plaintiff’s and the class members’ claims arise from the same course of events - they all applied for entry-level truck driver placements and were denied those placements as a result of Defendants’ criminal background hiring policy. See, e.g., Stewart, supra. (“Cases challenging the same unlawful conduct which affects both the named plaintiffs and the putative class usually satisfy the typicality requirement irrespective of the varying patterns underlying the individual claims”).
d. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff’s and the class members’ interests are at odds. See, e.g., Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625-626, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2250-2251, 138 L. Ed.2d 689 (1997)(“A class representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” (quoting East Tex. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S. Ct. 1891, 1896, 52 L. Ed.2d 453 (1977)).

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 48 Filed 02/13/12 Page 3 of 6
2. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants applied the criminal background hiring policy uniformly to all members of the class, and thus the class as a whole shares the same interest in obtaining the injunctive relief provided by the settlement prospective changes to the hiring policy. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2548-2549, 180 L. Ed.2d 374 (2011)(“Rule 23(b)(2) applies when “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”)
3. Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) in that common factual allegations and a common legal theory predominate over any factual or legal variations among class members. See, e.g., Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615; Easterling v. Connecticut Dept. Of Corrections, No. 3:08 Civ. 826, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134524 at *15 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2011)(“Common questions must ‘predominate over any questions affecting only individual members’; and class resolution must be ‘superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.’”).
4. Class adjudication of this case is superior to individual adjudication because it will conserve judicial resources and is more efficient for class members, particularly

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 48 Filed 02/13/12 Page 4 of 6
those who lack the resources to bring their claims individually. See, e.g., Amchem, 521 U.S. at 616-617.
5. The Settlement Agreement is the result of extensive, arm’s-length negotiations by counsel experienced in the prosecution of Title VII class actions and is within the range of possible settlement approval, such that notice to the class is appropriate.
6. The Settlement Agreement was reached at least in part through the assistance of an experienced mediator, Alfred G. Feliu, Esquire, which further reinforces that it is noncollusive.
7. Plaintiff’s counsel, Community Legal Services and Outten & Golden, LLP have significant experience in handling class actions and Title VII matters, are knowledgeable with respect to the laws applicable to the claims that have been raised in this action, have done extensive work thus far in this matter, particularly with respect to the identification and investigation of the Plaintiff’s and the class’ claims and possess the resources necessary to bring this matter to successful completion. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1).
8. The proposed class Notice comports with the requirements of due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2).
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED: A. The Settlement agreement memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release attached as Exhibit “B” to

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 48 Filed 02/13/12 Page 5 of 6
the Declaration of Rachel Bien is PRELIMINARILY APPROVED;
B. The following class is PROVISIONALLY CERTIFIED for
settlement purposes:
All Latino and African American individuals who submitted applications for a placement with one of the trucking companies for which Defendants recruit inexperienced truck drivers and whom Defendants rejected based on their criminal background between January 24, 2009 and September 30, 2010
C. Plaintiff’s counsel, Outten & Golden, LLP and Community
Legal Services are APPOINTED as class counsel;
D. The proposed Court-Authorized Notice (hereafter
“Notice”) attached as Exhibit “C” to the Declaration of Rachel
Bien is APPROVED;
E. The proposed Claim Form, which is attached as Exhibit
“D” to the Declaration of Rachel Bien is APPROVED; and
F. The Court hereby APPROVES the following Schedule for
Final Resolution of this matter:
(1) Within five (5) days of the entry date of this Order, Defendants shall provide the claims administrator with a list, in electronic form, of the following for all class members: (a) last known address; (2) last known telephone number; (c) date on which Defendants received their application for employment, and (4) information regarding felony criminal history, if such information exists in Defendants’ records (“Class List”);
(2) The Claims Administrator shall mail the Settlement Notice and Claim Form to class members within ten (10) days of receipt of the Class List;
(3) Class members shall have thirty (30) days from the date the Settlement Notice is mailed to opt out of or object to the settlement;
(4) Class members shall have sixty (60) days to return a Claim Form from the date the Settlement Notice is mailed;

Case 2:10-cv-01939-JCJ Document 48 Filed 02/13/12 Page 6 of 6
(5) Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the expiration of the deadline for return of the Claim Forms or by no later than July 16, 2012.
(6) A final fairness hearing is scheduled in this matter for 10 a.m. on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 before the undersigned in Courtroom 17A, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
(7) The Claims Administrator shall disburse settlement awards to class members, Class Counsel’s Court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, and Plaintiff’s service award within five (5) days of the Final Court Order approving the settlement, (i.e., the Effective Date of the settlement).
(8) the parties shall abide by all other terms of the Settlement Agreement.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Curtis Joyner

J. CURTIS JOYNER,

C.J.