Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

v.

)

)

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC.

)

)

and

)

)

YRC, INC.,

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

COMPLAINT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief to a class of Black employees who were adversely affected by such practices.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action is brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and § 706(f)(3) of Title VII, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and §2000e-5(f)(3), and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 3. This court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. 4. The unlawful acts alleged below were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

1

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
Division. PARTIES
5. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or the “Commission”), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
6. From at least January 1, 2004 to October 2008, Defendant Yellow Transportation, Inc., (“Yellow”) has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Illinois, County of Cook, and the Village of Chicago Ridge, Illinois.
7. From at least January 1, 2004 to October 2008, Defendant Yellow has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
8. Since at least January 1, 2004, Defendant Yellow has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
9. Since at least October 2008, Defendant YRC has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Illinois, County of Cook, and the Village of Chicago Ridge, Illinois.
10. Since at least October 2008, Defendant YRC has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
11. Since at least October 2008, Defendant YRC has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 12. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Jamison Dixon, Jeffery Burks, Charles Brown, Antonio Colon, Darrell Williams, Michael Woods, Clark Faulkner, Leonard Gregory, James Demoss, Laroy Washington, Ken George, Marshun Hill, Charles Woods, and Mack Leonard filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Yellow Transportation, Inc.
2

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
13. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 14. From at least 2004, to October 2008, Defendant Yellow engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of §703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Such unlawful employment practices include subjecting Jamison Dixon, Jeffery Burks, Charles Brown, Antonio Colon, Darrell Williams, Michael Woods, Clark Faulkner, Leonard Gregory, James Demoss, Laroy Washington, Ken George, Marshun Hill, Charles Woods, and Mack Leonard and a class of Black employees to harassment and different terms and conditions because of their race. Such practices include, but are not limited to:
a. Subjecting Black employees to a work environment with hangman’s nooses, racially derogatory comments, racial epithets, and racist graffiti;
b. Assigning Black employees to more difficult and time-consuming work assignments;
c. Subjecting Black employees to more frequent and greater discipline; d. Subjecting Black employee to greater scrutiny and more restrictive work
rules; and e. Assigning Black employees to lower paying or less favorable job assignments. 15. The result of the practices complained of in paragraph 14 has been to deprive Jamison Dixon, Jeffery Burks, Charles Brown, Antonio Colon, Darrell Williams, Michael Woods, Clark Faulkner, Leonard Gregory, James Demoss, Laroy Washington, Ken George, Marshun Hill, Charles Woods, and Mack Leonard and a class of Black employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race. 16. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 17. The unlawful practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jamison Dixon, Jeffery Burks, Charles Brown, Antonio Colon, Darrell Williams, Michael Woods, Clark Faulkner, Leonard Gregory, James Demoss, Laroy Washington, Ken George, Marshun Hill, Charles Woods, and Mack Leonard and a class of Black employees. 18. Effective no later than October 2008, Yellow was entirely merged into YRC, Inc.
3

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
19. Effective no later than October 2008, YRC succeeded Yellow in operating the Chicago Ridge facility previously owned and operated by Yellow.
20. From at least October 2008, Defendant YRC has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of §703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Such unlawful employment practices include subjecting a class of Black employees to harassment and different terms and conditions because of their race. Such practices include, but are not limited to:
a. Subjecting Black employees to a work environment with hangman’s nooses, racially derogatory comments, racial epithets, and racist graffiti;
b. Assigning Black employees to more difficult and time-consuming work assignments;
c. Subjecting Black employees to more frequent and greater discipline; d. Subjecting Black employee to greater scrutiny and more restrictive work
rules; and e. Assigning Black employees to lower paying or less favorable job assignments. 21. The result of the practices complained of in paragraph 20 has been to deprive a class of Black employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race. 22. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 23. The unlawful practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of a class of Black employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race; B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for its employees regardless of race, and which eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
4

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
C. Order Defendants to make whole Jamison Dixon, Jeffery Burks, Charles Brown, Antonio Colon, Darrell Williams, Michael Woods, Clark Faulkner, Leonard Gregory, James Demoss, Laroy Washington, Ken George, Marshun Hill, Charles Woods, Mack Leonard, and a class of Black employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from its unlawful employment practices, including medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial;
D. Order Defendants to make whole Jamison Dixon, Jeffery Burks, Charles Brown, Antonio Colon, Darrell Williams, Michael Woods, Clark Faulkner, Leonard Gregory, James Demoss, Laroy Washington, Ken George, Marshun Hill, Charles Woods, Mack Leonard, and a class of Black employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from its unlawful employment practices, including emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, and inconvenience, in amounts to be determined at trial;
E. Order Defendants to pay Jamison Dixon, Jeffery Burks, Charles Brown, Antonio Colon, Darrell Williams, Michael Woods, Clark Faulkner, Leonard Gregory, James Demoss, Laroy Washington, Ken George, Marshun Hill, Charles Woods, Mack Leonard, and a class of Black employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Prohibit Defendants from discriminating against any individual for engaging in protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII, or for participating in this lawsuit;
G. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
5

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint.

John
Gregory
Ethan
Ethan M. M. Cohen Trial Attorney A.R.D.C. #6206781 United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison, Room 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov

Respectfully submitted,
James Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 “L” Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

s/ John C. Hendrickson C. Hendrickson
Regional Attorney

______

_s/ Gregory Gochanour ________ Gochanour
Supervisory Trial Attorney

_s/ Ethan M. M. Cohen M. M. Cohen
Trial Attorney

______

6

 
 Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 1 of 32 PageID #:202

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., and YRC INC.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

Case No. 09 C 7693

)

) Judge James F. Holderman

)

) Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

)

)

)

)

CHARLES BROWN, JEFFREY BURKS,

)

ANTONIO COLON, JAMES DEMOSS,

)

JAMESON DIXON, CLARK FAULKNER

)

KENNETH GEORGE, LEONARD

)

GREGORY, MARSHUN HILL,

)

MACK LEONARD, CEDRIC MUSE,

)

LAROY WASHINGTON, DARRELL

)

WILLIAMS, CHARLES WOODS, and

)

MICHAEL WOODS

)

)

Intervening Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., and )

YRC INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq to correct unlawful discrimination on the

basis of race and to provide appropriate relief to Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon,

James DeMoss, Jameson Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun

Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, and

1

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 2 of 32 PageID #:203
Michael Woods (hereinafter “Intervening Plaintiffs”). Intervening Plaintiffs allege that YRC, Inc., and Yellow Transportation, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendants”), created a racially hostile work environment by: (1) failing to respond to Intervening Plaintiffs’ repeated complaints about nooses hung at the Chicago Ridge facility, failing to investigate, and failing to take disciplinary action against those individuals who hung the nooses; (2) failing to respond to Intervening Plaintiffs’ repeated complaints about racially hostile graffiti written on bathroom walls, failing to investigate, and failing to take disciplinary action against those individuals who wrote the graffiti, and (3) failing to respond to Intervening Plaintiffs’ repeated complaints that coworkers used racial slurs, wore racially hostile clothing, and exposed racially hostile tattoos, failing to investigate, and failing to take disciplinary action against those individuals who used racial slurs, wore racially hostile clothing, and exposed racially hostile tattoos. Intervening Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants subjected them to disparate treatment on account of their race by: (1) subjecting Intervening Plaintiffs to more stringent disciplinary action than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and (2) promoting Caucasian workers who had worked for less time than Intervening Plaintiffs instead of and/or before promoting Intervening Plaintiffs. Finally, Intervening Plaintiffs allege that Defendants retaliated against Intervening Plaintiffs for complaining about the hostile work environment and racially disparate treatment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 2. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the unlawful conduct alleged herein was committed within the boundaries of the Northern District of Illinois.
2

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 3 of 32 PageID #:204
PARTIES 3. Intervening Plaintiff Charles Brown is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois. 4. Intervening Plaintiff Jeffery Burks is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois. 5. Intervening Plaintiff Antonio Colon is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois. 6. Intervening Plaintiff James DeMoss is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois. 7. Intervening Plaintiff Jameson Dixon is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois. 8. Intervening Plaintiff Clark Faulkner is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois. 9. Intervening Plaintiff Kenneth George is an adult African-American male East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. 10. Intervening Plaintiff Leonard Gregory is an adult African-American male and resident of Lake County, Indiana. 11. Intervening Plaintiff Marshun Hill is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois. 12. Intervening Plaintiff Mack Leonard is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois. 13. Intervening Plaintiff Cedric Muse is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois.
3

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 4 of 32 PageID #:205
14. Intervening Plaintiff Laroy Washington is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois.
15. Intervening Plaintiff Darrell Williams is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois.
16. Intervening Plaintiff Charles Woods is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois.
17. Intervening Plaintiff Michael Woods is an adult African-American male and resident of Cook County, Illinois.
18. At all relevant times, YRC Worldwide Inc. was the parent company of Roadway Express and Defendant Yellow Transportation.
19. In or about March 2009, YRC Worldwide Inc. integrated Defendant Yellow Transportation and Roadway Express into Defendant YRC, Inc.
20. Defendant Yellow Transportation and Roadway Express now operate as Defendant YRC.
21. Defendant YRC is incorporated in Delaware and employs approximately 59,000 people worldwide.
22. Defendant YRC operates 394 terminals across the United States and several terminals within the state of Illinois.
23. At all relevant times, Defendant YRC and Defendant Yellow Transportation were doing business in Illinois and operating the locations at which the alleged discrimination took place.
24. Until December 2009, Defendant YRC operated a facility at 10301 S. Harlem Ave., Chicago Ridge, Illinois (hereinafter “Chicago Ridge facility”).
4

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 5 of 32 PageID #:206
25. At all relevant times, Defendant YRC and Defendant Yellow Transportation operated a facility at 2000 Lincoln Highway, Chicago Heights, IL (hereinafter “Chicago Heights facility”).
26. In or about December 2009, Defendant YRC closed the Chicago Ridge facility. 27. In or about December 2009, Defendant YRC transferred several Intervening Plaintiffs to the Chicago Heights facility.
COMMON CLAIMS Hostile Work Environment/Racial Harassment 28. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to a racially hostile work environment by tolerating the repeated hanging of nooses in conspicuous places at the Chicago Ridge facility, including on work equipment, in order to intimidate African-American workers. 29. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to a racially hostile work environment by tolerating the persistent appearance of written racial slurs in the Chicago Ridge facility including but not limited to, “I hate niggers,” “all niggers must die,” “fuck all niggers,” “rotten nigger,” “burn nigger burn,” “fag,” “white power,” and swastikas. 30. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to a racially hostile work environment by tolerating Caucasian employees’ frequent use of racial slurs, including, but not limited to, “nigger” and “mudcat,” as well as spoken statements including, but not limited to, “I hate black people,” “I hate niggers,” and, in reference to hurricane Katrina, “they should have put a cage around New Orleans and put a banana in the cage and let all the niggers drown.” 31. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to a racially hostile work environment by tolerating the display of racially hostile symbols, including, but not limited to, the Confederate flag and the letters “KKK” on Caucasian employees’ apparel and visible tattoos.
5

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 6 of 32 PageID #:207
32. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to a racially hostile work environment by tolerating racially hostile comments made over the radio in the Chicago Ridge facility.
33. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to a racially hostile work environment at the Chicago Ridge facility by allowing Caucasian supervisors to aggressively scrutinize Intervening Plaintiffs’ job performances while not subjecting similarly situated Caucasian employees to similar treatment.
34. Defendants failed to adequately address or respond to Intervening Plaintiffs’ complaints of racial harassment and the hostile work environment made to company officials, including, but not limited to, direct supervisors, management, and the Human Resources department.
35. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by failing to document Intervening Plaintiffs’ repeated complaints of race discrimination.
Disparate Treatment Due to Race 36. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by allowing supervisors to assign more strenuous work to Intervening Plaintiffs than to similarly situated Caucasian employees. 37. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by promoting similarly situated Caucasian employees, as well as Caucasian employees who had worked for Defendants for a shorter time, instead of and/or before promoting Intervening Plaintiffs. 38. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by denying Intervening Plaintiffs opportunities that would eventually allow them to be promoted while giving such opportunities to similarly situated Caucasian employees.
6

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 7 of 32 PageID #:208
39. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by forcing injured Intervening Plaintiffs to take shorter sick leaves than similarly situated Caucasian employees.
40. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by disciplining them for infractions for which similarly situated Caucasian employees were not disciplined, including, but not limited to, returning late to work after breaks, talking to each other, and going to the bathroom without asking permission.
41. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by disciplining them without proper investigation, which was different than their treatment of similarly situated Caucasian employees.
42. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by allowing similarly situated Caucasian employees to take more time off work than Intervening Plaintiffs.
43. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by giving them less desirable work shifts than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by denying them the opportunity, afforded to similarly situated Caucasian employees, to choose with which colleagues they worked.
44. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by giving Intervening Plaintiffs fewer opportunities to work overtime shifts than similarly situated Caucasian employees.
45. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by assigning them less desirable tasks than similarly situated Caucasian employees, including, but not limited to, requiring them to get in and out of their trucks in inclement weather.
7

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 8 of 32 PageID #:209
46. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by allowing similarly situated Caucasian employees to participate in a gift-certificate program through which they received thousands of dollars in gift certificates while denying Intervening Plaintiffs the same opportunity.
47. Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to disparate treatment due to their race by not giving them the same opportunities as similarly situated Caucasian employees to become drivers and spotters.
Retaliation Due to Race 48. Defendants retaliated against Intervening Plaintiffs for complaining about the discriminatory treatment as described in paragraphs 28 – 48 by, among other things, firing Intervening Plaintiffs, disciplining Intervening Plaintiffs for ordinarily unenforced rules, cutting off Intervening Plaintiffs’ medical benefits, and intimidating Intervening Plaintiffs while they were working.
INDIVIDUAL INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS Charles Brown’s Individual Complaints
49. Intervening Plaintiff Brown was hired by Defendant Yellow Transportation on July 5, 1991, as a temporary worker. Intervening Plaintiff Brown became a full time worker for Defendant Yellow Transportation on September 17, 1991.
50. Prior to December 2009, Intervening Plaintiff Brown was employed at the Chicago Ridge facility. He is now employed at the Chicago Heights facility.
51. Intervening Plaintiff Brown currently works for Defendants as a dock man; the same position as when he started as a full time employee.
8

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 9 of 32 PageID #:210
52. During Intervening Plaintiff Brown’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Brown to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Brown less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Brown for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48.
53. Intervening Plaintiff Brown has been subjected to harassment and discrimination based on race. Examples of this harassment and discrimination include:
a. A picture of a man hanging from a noose hung on Intervening Plaintiff Brown’s forklift in June 2005; b. Multiple nooses hung in the Chicago Ridge facility between May 2005 until May 2008; c. Supervisors taking no or minimal action to cover up or erase graffiti of racial slurs and racially hostile phrases in Intervening Plaintiff Brown’s workplace at the Chicago Ridge facility; d. Supervisors ignoring and failing to take investigatory or disciplinary action based on Intervening Plaintiff Brown’s complaints about the nooses, the racial slurs, and the racially hostile phrases; e. Defendants promoting similarly situated Caucasian workers who had worked at Defendants’ company for a shorter time than Intervening Plaintiff Brown to full- time status before Intervening Plaintiff Brown; f. Defendants punishing Intervening Plaintiff Brown for infractions for which similarly situated Caucasian employees were not disciplined, including going to the bathroom without asking permission;
9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 10 of 32 PageID #:211
g. Defendants demanding that Intervening Plaintiff Brown return to work after a break or while talking to a coworker while not demanding that similarly situated Caucasian employees do the same; and h. Intervening Plaintiff Brown’s supervisor, Bob Zabonski, disciplining Intervening Plaintiff Brown for reading a newspaper in the bathroom without investigating whether Intervening Plaintiff Brown was actually reading a newspaper in the bathroom. 54. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment during their employment with Defendants due to their race. 55. In April 2007, Defendant Yellow Transportation retaliated against Intervening Plaintiff Brown by denying Intervening Plaintiff Brown benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when Intervening Plaintiff Brown complained about the appearance of nooses in his workplace at the Chicago Ridge facility. 56. During Intervening Plaintiff Brown’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Brown’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Jeffery Burks’s Individual Claims 57. Intervening Plaintiff Burks started working as a temporary employee for Defendant Yellow Transportation in October 1995. He was hired as a full-time dock man on February 13, 1996. 58. Intervening Plaintiff Burks is currently laid off from Defendants. 59. During Intervening Plaintiff Burks’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Burks to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating
10

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 11 of 32 PageID #:212
a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Burks less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Burks for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48.
60. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants due to their race.
61. During Intervening Plaintiff Burks’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Burks’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Antonio Colon’s Individual Claims 62. Intervening Plaintiff Colon started working as a temporary employee for Defendant Yellow Transportation in 2000. He became a full-time employee approximately two years later, in 2002. 63. Intervening Plaintiff Colon is currently laid off from Defendants. 64. During Intervening Plaintiff Colon’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Colon to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Colon less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Colon for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48 . 65. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff Colon was subjected to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include: a. Being subjected to disparate treatment in the enforcement of work rules and policies, such as the rule against standing around and talking after breaks are over, the
11

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 12 of 32 PageID #:213
requirement that workers alert a supervisor when they intend to leave to use the bathroom, and the attendance policy; b. Being assigned less desirable shifts and tasks than similarly situated Caucasian employees; c. Having to wait a longer time than similarly qualified Caucasian workers to acquire the status of full-time employee; and d. Being called a “mutt” by a coworker in reference to his being half Puerto Rican and half African-American. 66. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants, due to their race. 67. During Intervening Plaintiff Colon’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Colon’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
James DeMoss’s Individual Claims 68. Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss was hired by Defendant Yellow Transportation in September 1991 as a temporary worker. He became a full time worker approximately one year later, in September 1992. 69. Prior to December 2009, Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss was employed at the Chicago Ridge facility. He is now employed at the Chicago Heights facility. 70. Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss currently works for Defendants as a dock man/spotter, but is on soft layoff status.
12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 13 of 32 PageID #:214
71. During Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss’ s employment with Defendants, Defendants have subjected Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48.
72. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss was subjected to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include:
a. Being denied promotion to full-time status until one day after a similarly situated Caucasian worker was promoted, which resulted in the Caucasian worker receiving seniority status, better work schedules, overtime, and days off; b. Being denied promotion by supervisors who subjected Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss to more stringent testing requirements than similarly situated Caucasian employees when he applied to be a driver; c. Receiving less desirable work schedules and more labor-intensive loads than similarly situated Caucasian dock workers; and d. Defendants not responding to Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss’ s complaints about racial slurs being used at the Chicago Ridge facility, including, but not limited to, a Caucasian employee making racial comments over the radio system. 73. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants, due to their race.
13

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 14 of 32 PageID #:215
74. During Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff DeMoss’ s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Jameson Dixon’s Individual Claims 75. Intervening Plaintiff Dixon began working for Defendant Yellow Transportation in April 1999 as a temporary worker and became a full time worker in August 1999. 76. Intervening Plaintiff Dixon is currently laid off from Defendants. 77. During Intervening Plaintiff Dixon’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Dixon to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Dixon less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Dixon for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48. 78. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff Dixon was subjected to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include: a. Being ordered back to work after a break when similarly situated Caucasian employees were not ordered back to work; and b. Having his complaints about racially charged graffiti and comments ignored by company supervisors. 79. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants. 80. During Intervening Plaintiff Dixon’s employment with Defendants, he was retaliated against for complaining about the racially hostile work environment when a supervisor
14

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 15 of 32 PageID #:216
denied him permission to work with certain coworkers for the stated reason that Intervening Plaintiff Dixon had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
81. During Intervening Plaintiff Dixon’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Dixon’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Clark Faulkner’s Individual Claims 82. Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner began working for Defendant Yellow Transportation in June 1997 as a temporary worker and became a full time worker in December 1997. 83. Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner is currently laid off from Defendants. 84. During Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48. 85. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner was subject to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include: a. Being denied promotion to full-time status until shortly after a similarly situated Caucasian worker was promoted, which resulted in the Caucasian worker receiving seniority status, better work schedules, overtime, and days off; b. Demeaning treatment including, but not limited to, being ordered to pick up a piece of wood by a Caucasian coworker while the coworker stood over the wood;
15

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 16 of 32 PageID #:217
c. Being denied promotion by being subjected to more stringent requirements than similarly situated Caucasian workers when Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner applied to be a driver; and d. Being subjected to more stringent disciplinary action than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and having company rules applied to him in an arbitrary way. 86. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants, due to their race. 87. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner was written up for complaining about the hostile work environment. 88. During Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner’s complaints as stated above, but failed to take sufficient corrective action or prevent further discrimination. Specific examples of Defendant’s failure to respond to Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner’s complaints include but are not limited to: a. In June 2008, “KKK” was written on the wall of the work bathroom. Although Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner complained to multiple supervisors, the writing was left on the wall for at least one month. b. In July 2008, Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner asked a coworker not to wear a shirt of a tattoo of a confederate flag he had on his arm. When the coworker ignored the request, Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner complained to a supervisor who also ignored the request. The coworker continued to wear clothes that revealed the tattoo in violation of work rules but was not disciplined for this action.
16

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 17 of 32 PageID #:218
c. After complaining about confederate flags being worn at the Chicago Ridge facility, coworkers began to tamper with Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner’s locker. Although Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner complained about the tampering to supervisors, no investigation was performed or disciplinary action taken. 89. During Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Faulkner’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Kenneth George’s Individual Claims 90. Intervening Plaintiff George began working for Defendant Yellow Transportation in June 2000 as a temporary worker and became a full time worker in June 2008. 91. Intervening Plaintiff George’s employment relationship was terminated by Defendant YRC in 2008. 92. During Intervening Plaintiff George’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff George to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff George less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff George for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48. 93. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff George was subject to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include: a. Being promoted to full time status after similarly situated Caucasian employees, thus giving seniority status to Caucasian employees; b. Being subjected to more stringent disciplinary action than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and having company rules applied to him in an arbitrary way;
17

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 18 of 32 PageID #:219
c. Demeaning treatment by coworkers such as graffiti written on the wall using Intervening Plaintiff George’s name along with racial slurs; d. Being denied access to workers’ compensation funds when Intervening Plaintiff George was injured at work while similarly situated Caucasian employees were not denied access; e. Being denied the opportunity to work “light duty” after being injured on the job, while similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subject to such treatment. 94. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants. 95. During Intervening Plaintiff George’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff George’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Leonard Gregory’s Individual Claims 96. Intervening Plaintiff Gregory was hired as a supervisor for Defendant Yellow Transportation on December 6, 1994. He was promoted to the position of Systems Operations Manager in 1997 and to the position of General Operations Manager in February 2004. Intervening Plaintiff Gregory stepped down from his position as General Operations Manager to the position of supervisor in March 2007 because he feared he would be discharged. 97. Intervening Plaintiff Gregory is currently on leave because of a work injury. 98. During Intervening Plaintiff Gregory’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Gregory to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Gregory less
18

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 19 of 32 PageID #:220
favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Gregory for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48.
99. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff Gregory was subjected to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include:
a. Insubordination by Caucasian employees that Intervening Plaintiff Gregory supervised; b. A false accusation by a Caucasian employee that led to Intervening Plaintiff Gregory’s arrest; c. Intervening Plaintiff Gregory’s tires being slashed immediately after a Caucasian employee threatened him; d. Racially charged phrases spoken at the Chicago Ridge facility and written on workroom walls such as “Leonard is a nigger lover,” “I think I’m going to take Ron Johnson to meet some of my friends at the next KKK rally, burn nigger burn, don’t forget Leonard,” “the white race would be perfect without the black race,” and “[being Black is] worse if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness;” and e. Being constructively demoted from the position of General Operations Manager to the position of supervisor by repeated threats of termination after Intervening Plaintiff Gregory took steps as a supervisor to address complaints about the hostile work environment. 100. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants, due to their race.
19

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 20 of 32 PageID #:221
101. During Intervening Plaintiff Gregory’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Gregory’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Marshun Hill’s Individual Claims 102. Intervening Plaintiff Hill started working as a temporary employee for Defendant Yellow Transportation in June 1991 and was hired as a full-time employee three months later. 103. Prior to December 2009, Intervening Plaintiff Brown was employed at the Chicago Ridge facility. He is now employed at the Chicago Heights facility. 104. Intervening Plaintiff Hill currently works for Defendants as a dock man; the same position as when he started as a full time employee. 105. During Intervening Plaintiff Hill’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Hill to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Hill less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Hill for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48. 106. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff Hill was subjected to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include: a. Being denied promotion to full-time status until shortly after a similarly situated Caucasian worker was promoted, which resulted in the Caucasian worker receiving seniority status, better work schedules, overtime, and days off; b. Being subjected to disparate treatment with regards to the rule against standing around talking after breaks are over; and c. Being subjected to disparate treatment by being punished for minor
20

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 21 of 32 PageID #:222
offenses while Caucasians were not punished for comparatively greater offenses. 107. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants, due to their race. 108. During Intervening Plaintiff Hill’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Hill’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Mack Leonard's Individual Claims 109. Intervening Plaintiff Leonard was hired by Defendant Yellow Transportation as a janitor in July 2006 as a temporary worker. Intervening Plaintiff Leonard became a permanent employee approximately 90 days after his hiring date. 110. Intervening Plaintiff Leonard is currently laid off from Defendants. 111. During Intervening Plaintiff Leonard’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Leonard to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Leonard less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Leonard for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48. 112. During Intervening Plaintiff Leonard’s employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff Leonard was the subject of harassment and discrimination based on race. Examples of this harassment and discrimination include: a. Defendants demanding that Intervening Plaintiff Leonard clean up graffiti stating “Kill Nigger” covered in feces, although the graffiti had been there for at least two days
21

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 22 of 32 PageID #:223
prior to Intervening Plaintiff Leonard’s arrival at work and other Caucasian janitors had been present and available to clean up the graffiti; b. Defendants requesting that Intervening Plaintiff Leonard give up a preferred work shift to a Caucasian staffer with less seniority; c. Multiple racial slurs and racially hostile phrases in Intervening Plaintiff Leonard’s workplace at the Chicago Ridge facility; d. Supervisors gave Leonard more difficult work than similarly situated Caucasian employees; e. Supervisors ignoring or failing to take investigatory or disciplinary action based on Intervening Plaintiff Leonard’s complaints about racial slurs, racially hostile phrases, and graffiti; and f. Defendants demanding that Intervening Plaintiff Leonard return to work after a break or while talking to a coworker while not demanding that similarly situated Caucasian employees do the same. 113. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment during their employment with Defendants due to their race. 114. During Intervening Plaintiff Leonard’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Leonard’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Cedric Muse’s Individual Claims 115. Intervening Plaintiff Muse started working for Defendant Yellow Transportation in September 1990 as a temporary worker and became a full time employee in January 1991.
22

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 23 of 32 PageID #:224
116. Intervening Plaintiff Muse is currently laid off from Defendants. 117. Intervening Plaintiff Muse was a union steward from 1997 until 1999. During this time, Intervening Plaintiff Muse was told by Supervisor Tom Hartman that he was subjected to different rules as a Union Steward because he was black. Intervening Plaintiff Muse was the only African-American Union Steward at that time. 118. During Intervening Plaintiff Muse’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Muse to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Muse less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Muse for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48. 119. Since Intervening Plaintiff Muse began working for Defendants he has been subjected to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include but are not limited to: a. Being assigned heavier loads than Caucasian workers; b. Being assigned to physical labor while Caucasian workers were assigned to driving trucks. Intervening Plaintiff Muse was certified to drive trucks at this time; and c. Observing writing on the bathroom wall that targeted him while he was a union steward such as “Muse represents the niggers.” 120. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants, due to their race. 121. Intervening Plaintiff Muse complained about the hostile work environment to supervisors whose reaction was to tell Intervening Plaintiff Muse that they would get back to him
23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 24 of 32 PageID #:225
about it. Defendants’ supervisors would not report to Intervening Plaintiff Muse that they had taken any action to remedy the hostile environment.
122. During Intervening Plaintiff Muse’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Muse’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Laroy Washington’s Individual Claims 123. Intervening Plaintiff Washington began working for Defendant Yellow Transportation in November 1996 and was hired as a full-time dockworker in May 1997. 124. Intervening Plaintiff Washington is currently laid off from Defendants. 125. During Intervening Plaintiff Washington’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Washington to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Washington less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Washington for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48. 126. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff Washington was subjected to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include: a. Being denied promotion to full-time status until shortly after a similarly situated Caucasian worker was promoted, which resulted in the Caucasian worker receiving seniority status, better work schedules, overtime, and days off; and b. Being subjected to disparate treatment with regards to the rule against standing around talking after breaks are over.
24

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 25 of 32 PageID #:226
127. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants, due to their race.
128. During Intervening Plaintiff Washington’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Washington’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Darryl Williams’s Individual Claims 129. Intervening Plaintiff Williams started working as a temporary employee for Defendant Yellow Transportation in August 2001. He became a full-time dock man on June 25, 2002. 130. Intervening Plaintiff Williams is currently laid off from Defendants. 131. During Intervening Plaintiff Williams’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Williams to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff Williams less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Williams for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48. 132. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff Williams was subjected to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include: a. Being subjected to disparate treatment in the enforcement of work rules and policies when a supervisor walked past four Caucasian men violating the rule against talking in order to reprimand Intervening Plaintiff Williams for violating the rule against using a cell phone; and
25

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 26 of 32 PageID #:227
b. Being subjected to disparate treatment on account of his race with regard to work assignments and difficulty of work. 133. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants, due to their race. 134. Intervening Plaintiff Williams was retaliated against for complaining about discrimination by getting more difficult assignments or by getting no work at all. 135. During Intervening Plaintiff Williams’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Williams’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Charles Woods’s Individual Claims 136. Intervening Plaintiff C. Woods started working as a temporary employee for Defendant Yellow Transportation in July 2002 and became a full time employee in August 2003. 137. Intervening Plaintiff C. Woods is currently laid off from Defendants. 138. During Intervening Plaintiff C. Woods’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Woods to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff C. Woods less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff Woods for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48. 139. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff C. Woods has been subject to discrimination on account of his race. Examples of this discrimination include:
26

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 27 of 32 PageID #:228
a. Being subject to more stringent requirements than similarly situated Caucasian employees to gain full time status; b. Being given a more difficult driving test than similarly situated Caucasian employees when he applied to be a driver for Defendants; c. Overhearing his supervisor tell his coworkers that he did not like AfricanAmericans and Mexicans; and d. Being disciplined for actions for which similarly situated Caucasian employees were not disciplined, including taking breaks at prohibited times. 140. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants. 141. During Intervening Plaintiff C. Woods’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff Woods’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
Michael Woods’s Individual Claims 142. Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods started working as a temporary employee for Defendant Yellow Transportation in mid-2001. He became a full-time employee on June 25, 2002. 143. Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods’s employment relationship was terminated by Defendant YRC in 2009. 144. During Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods’s employment with Defendants, Defendants subjected Intervening Plaintiff Woods to discrimination due to his race by creating and tolerating a racially hostile work environment, by treating Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods
27

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 28 of 32 PageID #:229
less favorably than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and by retaliating against Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods for complaining about racial discrimination as alleged in paragraphs 28 – 48.
145. During his employment with Defendants, Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods was subjected to discrimination due to his race. Examples of this discrimination include:
a. Being subjected to disparate treatment in the enforcement of work rules and policies, such as the rule against standing around talking after breaks are over and the requirement that workers alert a supervisor when they intend to leave to use the bathroom; b. Being denied promotion to full-time status until shortly after a similarly situated Caucasian worker was promoted, which resulted in the Caucasian worker receiving seniority status, better work schedules, overtime, and days off; and c. Being subjected to a hostile work environment by being specifically named in statements appearing on bathroom walls, such as, “Mike is a rotten nigger,” “Woods you’re a dead mother fucker,” “Michael Woods your dead,” and “Mike isn’t black.” 146. Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods was retaliated against for complaining about discrimination. Examples of this retaliation include but are not limited to: a. Having axel grease poured on the seat of his forklift after he complained about the hostile work environment; b. Being punished for actions that did not violate any rule; c. Being punished for violating rules that were rarely or never enforced; d. Receiving unusually harsh punishments for violations that typically warranted minimal reprimand;
28

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 29 of 32 PageID #:230
e. Being temporarily terminated for reasons his supervisors refused to state; and f. Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods was labeled as a “trouble-maker” by Defendants’ supervisors for complaining about race discrimination. Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods was watched and disciplined more strictly than he was before complaining. 147. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not subjected to such discrimination and received more favorable treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment with Defendants, due to their race. 148. During Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods’s employment, Defendants were aware of Intervening Plaintiff M. Woods’s complaints as enumerated above, but failed to take corrective action or prevent further discrimination.
COUNT I: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 149. Intervening Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each allegation above as if set forth herein in full. 150. Defendants have subjected Intervening Plaintiffs to different terms and conditions of employment than similarly situated Caucasian employees and have intentionally discriminated against Intervening Plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq by: (1) allowing a racially hostile work environment to exist by not taking sufficient actions to stop nooses from being hung at the Chicago Ridge facility, racial slurs and racially hostile statements from being written and spoken, racially hostile symbols from being displayed and employees from wearing racially charged clothing and tattoos, racial slurs and racially hostile language being written on workplace walls at the Chicago Ridge and Chicago Heights facilities; (2) applying promotion practices which give seniority to Caucasian workers that have worked for the Defendants for either less or equal time than Intervening Plaintiffs; (3) applying disciplinary actions in a
29

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 30 of 32 PageID #:231
discriminatory fashion against Intervening Plaintiffs; (4) refusing to respond to or not taking sufficient actions about complaints from Intervening Plaintiffs about the hostile work environment; (5) retaliating against Intervening Plaintiffs for complaining about the racially hostile work environment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 151. WHEREFORE, Intervening Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief: a. Enter judgment that Defendants’ acts and practices as set forth herein are in violation of the laws of the United States; b. Enter preliminary and permanent relief enjoining the discriminatory conduct and requiring Defendants to take steps to end its discriminatory practices and prevent current and future harm to Intervening Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to:
i. Revised procedures which would require that Defendants’ managers use fair and objective criteria when promoting employees; ii. Revised procedures which would require that Defendants’ disciplinary procedures to be applied in a non-discriminatory fashion; iii. Implementation of a meaningful system of oversight to ensure that Defendants’ managers are using objective criteria to assign overtime, shift schedules, job assignments, and benefits such as hiring and promotions; and iv. Implementation of meaningful procedures to ensure racial harassment at the Chicago Heights facility is eliminated. v. Implementation of meaningful procedures to ensure that racial discrimination at the Chicago Ridge facility is eliminated if it is reopened.
30

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 31 of 32 PageID #:232

c. Award Intervening Plaintiffs lost wages, including back pay for failure to

promote, and any lost benefits that would otherwise have been available to the

Intervening Plaintiffs without the discrimination;

d. Award Intervening Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages;

e. Award reinstatement to Intervening Plaintiffs who resigned due to race

discrimination;

f. Award Intervening Plaintiffs the costs of this action, including the fees and costs

of experts, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

g. Grant Intervening Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court finds

necessary and proper.

JURY DEMAND

152. Intervening Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues of facts and damages in

this action.

Respectfully Submitted

By: s/Randall D. Schmidt One of Intervening Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Randall D. Schmidt Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic 6020 S. University Ave. Chicago, Illinois 60637 (773) 702-9611 Fax: (773) 702-2063

Carol Coplan Babbitt Law Offices of Carol Coplan Babbitt 35 East Wacker Drive Suite 650 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 435-9775 Fax: (312) 782-4519

Catherine A. Caporusso Law Offices of Catherine A. Caporusso 53 W. Jackson Suite 504 Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 933-0655 Fax: (312) 347-3272

Dated: October 6, 2010

31

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 49 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 32 of 32 PageID #:233

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 6, 2010, I served the foregoing Complaint in Intervention

using the District Court’s CM/ECF filing system upon the following ECF Users:

John c. Hedrickson Gregory Gochanour Richark J. Mrizek Deborah L. Hamilton Ethan M. M. Cohen Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Room 2000 Chicago, IL 60661

Kevin W. Shaughnessy Tracey Ellerson Sarah K Newcomer Baker & Hostetler, LLP Post Office Box 112 200 South Orange Ave. Sun Trust Center, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801-0112

Margo Wolf O'Donnell Christopher L. Nybo Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601-1003

.

s/ Randall D. Schmidt One of Intervening Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

32

 
 Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 1 of 46 PageID #:2763
J
j

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

CHARLES E. BROWN, JEFFREY BURKS,

)

ANTONIO COLON, JAMES DEMOSS, JAMESON

)

DIXON, CLARK FAULKNER, KENNETH GEORGE, )

LEONARD GREGORY, MARSHUN HILL, MACK

)

LEONARD, CEDRIC MUSE, LAROY

)

WASHINGTON, DARRELL WILLIAMS, CHARLES )

WOODS and MICHAEL WOODS,

)

Intervening Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC. and YRC, Inc., )

_____D_e_fe_nd_a_nt_s._______________________

)
)

CHARLES BROWN, JEFFERY BURKS,

)

ANTONIO COLON, JAMES DEMOSS,

)

JAMESON DIXON, CLARK FAULKNER,

)

KENNETH GEORGE, LEONARD GREGORY,

)

MARSHUN HILL, CEDRIC MUSE,

)

LAROY WASHINGTON, DARRELL WILLIAMS,

)

CHARLES WOODS, MICHAEL WOODS, MACK

)

LEONARD, on behalf of themselves and similarly

)

situated African-American employees,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., and YRC, INC., )

_____D_ef_en_d_an_t_s. ______________________

)
)

Case No. 09 CV 7693 Magistrate Judge Cox
Case No. 08 CV 5908 Magistrate Judge Cox

CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION
1. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") filed suit (case number 09 CV 7693) against Defendants, Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC Inc., d/b/a
Page 1 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 2 of 46 PageID #:2764
{.
YRC Freight (collectively "YRC" or the "Defendant"), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., (the "EEOC Chicago Ridge Title VII case"), alleging that YRC discriminated against African-American employees at its Chicago Ridge facility. EEOC alleged that YRC violated Title VII by unlawfully discriminating against a class of Black employees by fostering a hostile work environment based upon race, and unlawfully discriminated against its Black employees in the terms and conditions of employment. On October 6, 2010, current and former YRC employees Charles E. Brown, Jeffrey Burks, Antonio Colon, James DeMoss, Jameson Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods and Michael Woods ("Intervening Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint in Intervention in EEOC's action alleging that YRC violated Title VII by unlawfully discriminating against them individually by fostering a hostile work environment based upon race, and unlawfully discriminated against them in the terms and conditions oftheir employment at Chicago Ridge.
2. Prior to the EEOC Chicago Ridge Title VII case, on October 15, 2008, 14 of the 15 Intervening Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (case number 08 CV 5908), alleging that YRC had violated Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"), by discriminating against them and a class of current and former Black employees who worked on the dock or in the yard (as spotters) at Chicago Ridge (the "Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case"). On July 10, 2010, the Court allowed Mack Leonard to join in the Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case as a Named Plaintiff and allowed the Named Plaintiffs to file their Corrected Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint").
3. On May 11, 2011, the Court in the Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case certified a class of Black employees who had worked at the Chicago Ridge facility under Rule 23(b)(3) of
Page 2 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 3 of 46 PageID #:2765
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as follows: All current and former African-American employees employed between October 15, 2004, and the present by YRC Inc. and Yellow Transportation, Inc., on its docks, in offices located on or near the docks, or in the yard in the positions of dock worker, hostler, spotter, janitor, supervisor, or clerical (including as a "casual," "10%," "regular," full-time or other employee) at their facility located at 10301 S. Harlem Ave., Chicago Ridge, Illinois ("Chicago Ridge") and including those Chicago Ridge African-American employees transferred in 2009 to work at the facility located at 2000 Lincoln Highway, Chicago Heights, Illinois ("Chicago Heights").
4. The EEOC Chicago Ridge Title VII case and the Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case have been consolidated for purposes of entering this Consent Decree (the "Decree"). Class Notice was issued to the Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case class on March 15, 2012, and it required any individual desiring to opt-out of the class to notify Section 1981 Class Counsel, before May 15, 2012, of their desire to opt-out. No member of the class opted-out of the certified class, and YRC faces no additional exposure for Section 1981 claims of current or former African-American YRC employees, as described in the certified class, arising on or after October 2004.
5. In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, all Parties in all of the above cases have agreed that these actions pertaining to Chicago Ridge should be finally resolved by Entry of this Decree.
6. By entering into this Decree, no party makes any admission regarding any claims or potential claims or any defenses thereto.
7. This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaints, Amended Complaints, and Complaints in Intervention in the EEOC Chicago Ridge Title VII case and the Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case.
Page 3 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 4 of 46 PageID #:2766
DEFINITIONS 8. In addition to the terms defined elsewhere in the Consent Decree, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
A. "EEOC Settlement Class" shall mean those individuals who submitted claims to EEOC and who also were identified to YRC's Counsel in the EEOC Chicago Ridge Title VII case.
B. "Section 1981 Settlement Class" shall mean all current and former AfricanAmerican employees employed between October 15, 2004, and the present by YRC Inc. and Yellow Transportation, Inc., on its docks, in offices located on or near the docks, or in the yard in the positions of dock worker, hostler, spotter, janitor, supervisor, or clerical (including as a "casual," "10%," "regular," full-time or other employee) at Chicago Ridge and including those Chicago Ridge African-American employees transferred in 2009 to work at Chicago Heights.
C. "Settlement Class" shall mean the combined EEOC Settlement Class and the Section 1981 Settlement Class.
D. "Intervening Plaintiffs" shall mean Charles Brown, Jeffrey Burks, Antonio Colon, James DeMoss, Jameson Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, and Michael Woods.
E. "Intervenors' Counsel" refers to Carol Coplan Babbitt, Catherine A. Caporusso, Randall D. Schmidt, and the University of Chicago's Edwin F. Mandel Legal Clinic.
F. "Section 1981 Named Plaintiffs" refers to Charles Brown, Jeffrey Burks, Antonio Colon, James DeMoss, Jameson Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard
Page 4 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 5 of 46 PageID #:2767
Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, and Michael Woods.
G. "Section 1981 Class Counsel" refers to Carol Coplan Babbitt, Catherine A. Caporusso, Randall D. Schmidt, and the University of Chicago's Edwin F. Mandel Legal Clinic.
H. "Defendant" or "Company" shall mean Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc. d/b/a YRC Freight, and any of their predecessors or successors in interest.
I. "Parties" means EEOC, Intervening Plaintiffs, Section 1981 Named Plaintiffs, and Defendant.
J. "Plaintiffs" means EEOC, Intervening Plaintiffs, and the Section 1981 Named Plaintiffs.
K. "Claimant" means each member of the Settlement Class who timely submits a claim form.
L. "Preliminary Approval" of the Consent Decree means the date when the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted conditional approval of the proposed Consent Decree, subject to notice and a Fairness Hearing with regard to the Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case class settlement.
M. "Final Approval of the Consent Decree" means the date when notice is received by the Parties through the Court's ECF system that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division has held a Fairness Hearing with regard to the settlement, has approved the settlement under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and has granted final approval of the Decree.
Page 5 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 6 of 46 PageID #:2768
N. "YRC's Chicago Heights operation" means YRC's existing Chicago Heights break bulk facility located at 2000 East Lincoln Highway, Chicago Heights, Illinois 60411.
0. "Settlement Fund" means the monetary fund set up for the purpose of providing monetary awards to Claimants and out of which Intervening Plaintiffs/Named Plaintiffs and Section 1981 Class Counsel will be paid.
P. "Approval of Distribution" means the date the Parties receive notice through the Court's ECF system that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division has approved the distribution of the settlement fund.
Q. "YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation" means (i) YRC's existing Chicago Heights break bulk facility located at 2000 East Lincoln Highway, Chicago Heights, Illinois 60411, and (ii) if the existing Chicago Heights break bulk facility is closed down or substantially moved to another YRC break bulk facility within fifty (50) miles of the existing Chicago Heights facility, then any additional YRC break bulk facility where more than fifty (50) percent of the African-American workers at the YRC break bulk facility are members of the Settlement Class.
FINDINGS 9. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the Parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the EEOC Chicago Ridge Title VII case, the Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case, and of the Parties in each case.
Page 6 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 7 of 46 PageID #:2769
b. The terms ofthis Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of EEOC, YRC, the Intervening Plaintiffs, the EEOC Settlement Class, the Section 1981 Settlement Class, and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree.
c. This Decree conforms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title VII, and Section 1981, and is not in derogation ofthe rights or privileges of any person. The Entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and Section 1981, and will be in the best interests of EEOC, YRC, the Intervening Plaintiffs, the EEOC Settlement Class, the Section 1981 Settlement Class, and the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: MONETARY RELIEF
10. The aggregate sum of Eleven Million Dollars ($11,000,000.00) shall be distributed to the Claimants, Intervening Plaintiffs/Named Plaintiffs, and the Section 1981 Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of this Decree.
ESTABLISHMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS & MONETARY ALLOCATION 11. By July 15, 2012, Defendants shall pay the aggregate sum of Five Million Five
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,500,000.00) (the "Initial Payment"). The Initial Payment shall be deposited by wire transfer into an account held in trust as set forth in Paragraph 12 below and administered by EEOC and the Section 1981 Class Counsel under the Court's supervision, which shall constitute the Settlement Fund for the purpose of providing monetary awards to Claimants, Intervening Plaintiffs/Named Plaintiffs, and Section 1981 Class Counsel. The Settlement Fund shall be established at Seaway National Bank of Chicago (or such other institution identified by EEOC and Section 1981 Class Counsel). Any interest accrued by the Settlement Fund will be
Page 7 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 8 of 46 PageID #:2770
used to pay expenses associated with the administration of the Settlement Fund. Any interest in excess of the costs of administration shall be distributed to Claimants and Intervening Plaintiffs/Named Plaintiffs in accordance to the distribution plan approved by the Court. Other than withdrawal of accrued interest to pay expenses associated with the administration of the Settlement Fund, all payments from this Settlement Fund shall go to Claimants, Intervening Plaintiffs/Named Plaintiffs, and Section 1981 Class Counsel only in accord with the distribution approved by the Court pursuant to Paragraphs 16, 36, and 38 below.
12. The Settlement Fund shall be an irrevocable trust under Illinois law and a Qualified Settlement Fund under Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code and shall be administered by EEOC and the Section 1981 Class Counsel under the Court's supervision.
13. By November 15, 2012, or within 30 days after Final Approval, whichever is later, Defendants shall pay by wire transfer to the Settlement Fund an additional aggregate sum of Five Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,500,000.00).
14. Within 5 business days of Approval of Distribution, Intervenors' Counsel/Section 1981 Class Counsel shall be paid a sum of One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000.00) out of the Settlement Fund. This payment is payment in full for Intervenors' Counsel/Section 1981 Class Counsel claims for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with their representation ofthe Intervening Plaintiffs, the Named Plaintiffs, and the Section 1981 Class, including costs and fees associated with the implementation ofthis Decree.
15. All of the funds payable to the EEOC Settlement Class and the Section 1981 Settlement Class will be distributed in accord with the distribution process described in this Decree at Paragraphs 28-39.
Page 8 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 9 of 46 PageID #:2771
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR 16. First Class, Inc., 5410 W. Roosevelt Rd., Unit 222, Chicago, Illinois 60644 shall act as Claims Administrator who shall: (a) verify addresses using the national change of address database and mail notices and forms relating to the settlement, claims forms, and claims notices; (b) receive objections and other communications from Section 1981 Settlement Class members regarding the settlement of the Section 1981 Class Action; (c) receive claims forms for the Settlement Fund; (d) transmit notifications of monetary awards; (e) issue checks to eligible Claimants from the Settlement Fund; (f) issue related tax documents; and (g) perform such other administrative tasks as may facilitate the claims process. 17. Interest accrued by the Settlement Fund will be used to cover costs associated with the distribution of the above funds to Claimants. To the extent accrued interest does not cover these costs, all outstanding Claims Administrator costs shall be paid by YRC, including, without limitation, all costs associated with the creation of the Settlement Fund, all costs to be paid by the Claims Administrator, and all costs related to the issuance and mailing of notices and checks in accordance with this Decree.
FAIRNESS HEARING/APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 18. The Section 1981 Class in the Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case has been certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Notice of the pendency of the Section 1981 Class Action was provided to the class through a notice published in the Chicago Tribune on March 15, 2012, and a Notice mailed to every potential class member on March 16, 2012. The initial Notice thoroughly described the litigation, the claims made by the Named Plaintiffs, the issues involved and the rights of unnamed class members. It also notified unnamed class members of their right to opt-out of the class action. The opt-out period ended on May 15, 2012,
Page 9 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 10 of 46 PageID #:2772
and no class member opted-out. 19. Notice to Settlement Class Members. Within 15 days after Preliminary
Approval, the Claims Administrator shall provide notice via first class mail using the updated addresses obtained during the initial notice process to all Settlement Class members in a form approved by the Court. The notice shall: (a) state that there is a proposed settlement of the claims in the EEOC case and the Section 1981 case; (b) describe the cases, the terms of the settlement, and that the eligible members of the Settlement Class may submit a Claim Form in the claims process for monetary relief; (c) indicate that the Court will hold a hearing at which time the Court will consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed settlement; and (d) indicate that Settlement Class members may submit written comments regarding the settlement or appear at the Fairness Hearing. A copy of the Notice to be submitted to the Court for approval is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
20. YRC shall reasonably cooperate with the Claims Administrator, Section 1981 Class Counsel, and EEOC in identifying and locating Settlement Class members. The Claims Administrator will perform a computer database trace for the current addresses of the Settlement Class members formerly employed by YRC.
21. Fairness Hearing. A Fairness Hearing to consider the overall fairness, reasonableness and adequacy ofthe proposed settlement ofthe EEOC case and the Section 1981 case shall be held approximately 75 days after Preliminary Approval, on a date specified by the Court.
22. Appearance by Settlement Class Members at Fairness Hearing. Any member of the Settlement Class may appear at the Fairness Hearing and be heard in opposition to the overall fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed. Settlement Class members who
Page 10 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 11 of 46 PageID #:2773
wish to object to this Decree or any part of it may be heard at the Fairness Hearing only: (a) if they file with this Court and serve on the Section 1981 Class Counsel, EEOC, and Counsel for YRC, a written statement of their objection; (b) where such statement is received by the Section 1981 Class Counsel, EEOC, Counsel for YRC, and the Court 15 days prior to the Fairness Hearing; (c) where such statement indicates whether they intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing; and (d) if they contemporaneously notify Section 1981 Class Counsel, EEOC, Counsel for YRC, and the Court, of their intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing.
Such objectors may appear at the Fairness Hearing either in person or by counsel. Failure to perform any of these requirements shall be deemed a waiver of any objections. The Parties may, but need not, respond in writing to objections by filing a response with the Court.
23. If the Court approves the Decree at the Fairness Hearing, the Claims Administrator shall mail notice of Final Approval of the Consent Decree to each Settlement Class member within 10 days of the Fairness Hearing.
24. Release of Claims by EEOC. Upon Final Approval ofthe Decree, YRC Inc. and Yellow Transportation, Inc., and their current and former shareholders, directors, officers, managers, agents, creditors, employees, attorneys, insurers, and for each of the foregoing, their respective parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns, shall be fully released and forever discharged by EEOC from all issues and claims of EEOC arising from the Complaint filed by EEOC in the EEOC Chicago Ridge Title VII case and the Charges of Discrimination
Page 11 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 12 of 46 PageID #:2774
and Amended Charges of Discrimination underlying this litigation filed by Charles Brown, Jeffrey Burks, Antonio Colon, James DeMoss, Jameson Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, and Michael Woods. This release is final and shall survive the expiration of the Decree's term.
25. Release of Claims by the Section 1981 Settlement Class. Upon Final Approval of the Decree, YRC Inc. and Yellow Transportation, Inc., and their current and former shareholders, directors, officers, managers, agents, creditors, employees, attorneys, insurers, and for each of the foregoing, their respective parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns, shall be fully released and forever discharged from any and all individual and/or class-wide claims, demands, complaints, rights and causes of actions of any kind, known or unknown, by each member of the Section 1981 Settlement Class, including their heirs, assigns and estates, whether seeking monetary and/or equitable relief of any sort, which arise out of or are related to the underlying operative facts in any Charge of Discrimination, Amended Charge of Discrimination, Complaint, Amended Complaint, or Complaint in Intervention filed by the Plaintiffs which were, or could have been asserted, all of which are released, extinguished and dismissed pursuant to this Decree. This release is final and shall survive the expiration of the Decree's term.
CLAIMS PROCESS 26. The Claims Administrator will send out claim forms (Exhibit C) to each member of the Settlement Class, with the notice of settlement via first class mail. Settlement Class members who seek to recover monetary compensation must complete a claim form and cause it to be filed with the Claims Administrator within 75 days after the claim form is mailed. The
Page 12 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 13 of 46 PageID #:2775
claim form must be actually received by the Claims Administrator on or before such date in order to be considered timely. It is the obligation of the Settlement Class member to ensure receipt by the Claims Administrator ofthe claim form on or before the due date. All claim forms must be signed under penalty of perjury to be considered. All Settlement Class members (including the Intervening Plaintiffs/Section 1981 Named Plaintiffs) who have given a deposition, provided a signed Affidavit, or returned an EEOC Questionnaire in this case shall be considered to have filed a timely claim. EEOC, in its discretion, may require these Claimants to provide additional information in support of their claims.
a. Late Claims. For claims received after the filing deadline, EEOC and Section 1981 Class Counsel shall notify late-filing Settlement Class members that their claims are untimely and that they are not eligible for any monetary award. EEOC or the Section 1981 Class Counsel may reverse the determination that a claim was not timely filed only if the Settlement Class member proves that the untimeliness determination is erroneous.
b. Claims of Deceased Persons. Claims may be submitted on behalf of Claimants who have died provided that a legally-authorized representative of their estate, possessing appropriate documentation (letters testamentary, Small Estate Affidavit or the equivalent), timely submits the required claim forms. Any claims paid to a deceased Claimant shall be made payable to the estate of the deceased Claimant.
27. The Claims Administrator shall forward claim forms and supporting documentation to EEOC and Section 1981 Class Counsel on a rolling basis.
DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS 28. Within 60 days of the deadline for receiving claim forms, EEOC shall make a determination as to whether the Claimants who filed timely claims are eligible to receive a
Page 13 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 14 of 46 PageID #:2776
monetary award and, if so, EEOC shall determine the amount of each monetary award. In making such determinations, EEOC may consider whatever evidence EEOC deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, evidence received by EEOC in its investigation of the charges of discrimination underlying this action, in connection with its litigation of this action, and in connection with the claims process provided by this Decree. If a claim form is determined to be incomplete by EEOC, EEOC may request additional information from the Claimant, if it appears that such additional information would complete the claim form. The Claimant must provide the requested information, signed under penalty of perjury, to EEOC by mail with a postmark no later than 14 days from the date of the mailed request for information.
29. EEOC may ask YRC to provide necessary information and data that has not already been provided to EEOC or to Section 1981 Class Counsel to make award determinations. YRC will respond to all reasonable EEOC requests for information relating to the Claimants within 30 days of the receipt of the request, or as soon as practicable, by providing all responsive documents and information available to YRC. The information requested by EEOC of YRC pursuant to this Paragraph shall be limited to the Claimants' job duties and titles, work histories, dates of termination, dates of leave, and any other information that is reasonably available to YRC relating to the Claimants.
30. EEOC will determine the amount of each Claimant's monetary award based on a point system developed by EEOC and Section 1981 Class Counsel. This point system will take into account several factors, including: (i) length of employment, (ii) dates of employment, (iii) job assignments/classifications, (iv) the severity ofthe alleged harassment or discrimination, (v) whether the alleged harassment or discrimination was personally directed at the Claimant, (vi) the duration of the alleged harassment or discrimination, (vii) the extent of the alleged harm, (vii)
Page 14 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 15 of 46 PageID #:2777
whether the Claimant alleged to have been actually or constructively discharged, (viii) the managerial status of the persons involved, (ix) whether the Claimant allegedly received more difficult work assignments because of race, (x) whether the Claimant allegedly received shorter breaks because of race, (xi) whether the Claimant allegedly received harsher or more frequent discipline because of race, (xii) whether the Claimant allegedly failed to receive opportunities to be a hostler/spotter, (xiii) whether the Claimant allegedly failed to be timely moved from a casual position to permanent status, (xiv) whether the Claimant allegedly complained of discrimination, (xv) the Claimant's participation and cooperation with EEOC and the Section 1981 Class Counsel in the litigation ofthese cases, and (xvi) overall strength ofthe alleged claim as determined by EEOC. The monetary award will constitute non-pecuniary compensatory damages.
31. EEOC's determination of the amount of monetary relief to be received by the Claimants under this Decree shall be submitted to the Section 1981 Class Counsel and approved by the Court. YRC will not participate in or object to EEOC's determinations.
32. Each of the Section 1981 Named Plaintiffs shall receive an incentive payment in an amount to be recommended by the Section 1981 Class Counsel and EEOC, and approved by the Court. These incentive payments will be in the range of$15,000.00 to $35,000.00, and shall be in addition to the amount they are awarded through the claims process.
33. An amount of $100,000.00 will be set aside from the initial distribution in the Settlement Fund to pay out to Claimants who have demonstrated an error in the claims process. EEOC and the Section 1981 Class Counsel, with the approval of the Court, may make additional payments to Claimants to correct errors in the claims process. Any money that remains in the account after this process shall be added to the payments made to the Claimants in proportion to
Page 15 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 16 of 46 PageID #:2778
the amount of their award. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS 34. Within 14 days of the determination of all claims, EEOC and the Section 1981
Class Counsel shall file a motion with the Court seeking Approval of the Distribution of the Settlement Fund among those eligible Claimants who have executed and timely returned their claim forms and the required Release. In connection with this motion, EEOC and the Section 1981 Class Counsel shall (i) seek approval ofthe process developed by EEOC and Section 1981 Class Counsel pursuant to Paragraph 30, used to determine the distribution, and (ii) file a proposed settlement distribution list, which shall contain the redacted name and proposed gross settlement amount for each eligible Claimant. A non-redacted list shall be submitted to the Court for in camera inspection, and filed under seal. YRC shall not challenge the proposed settlement distribution list. After appropriate review, in connection with which EEOC shall provide any information within EEOC's possession that the Court requests, the Court will enter an Order Approving the Allocation of the Settlement Funds and the distribution thereof pursuant to this Decree.
NOTIFICATION OF AWARDS 35. Within 7 days of the Order Approving the Distribution of the Settlement Funds, EEOC and Section 1981 Class Counsel shall cause the Claims Administrator to notify each Claimant (both eligible Claimants as well as those not receiving a monetary award) via U.S. First Class Mail ofthe amount ofhislher monetary award, if any. 36. Along with the Notification of Award, the Claims Administrator shall mail to each eligible Claimant a Release (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). Each eligible Claimant will be notified that in order to receive monetary payments under this Decree, he/she
Page 16 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 17 of 46 PageID #:2779
must execute and deliver to the Claims Administrator a Release, which will become effective upon the Claimant's receipt of his or her distribution. The letter will inform each eligible Claimant that such Release must be signed and mailed to the Claims Administrator so that it is actually received by the Claims Administrator within 45 days of the mailing of the Notification of Award. Any eligible Claimant whose executed Release is not actually received by the Claims Administrator within 45 days of the mailing of the Notification Award shall be ineligible for and forever barred from receiving any reliefunder this Decree, unless EEOC and Section 1981 Class Counsel determine that such individual is eligible to be paid out of the administrative error fund (and provided that the Release is executed). The Claims Administrator shall promptly provide all original signed Releases to YRC and provide copies to the Section 1981 Class Counsel and EEOC.
ADJUSTMENT OF AWARDS DUE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR 37. Within 60 days of Approval of Distribution, EEOC and Section 1981 Class Counsel may seek the Court's approval to award money or adjust awards for Claimants due to administrative error as provided in Paragraph 33. Any adjustment must take place within 60 days of Approval of Distribution. After 60 days, EEOC will instruct the Claims Administrator to allocate any of the un-awarded money to the Claimants in proportion to the amount of their award.
DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUND 38. Within 70 days after the Court's Approval of Distribution of Settlement Funds, EEOC and the Section 1981 Class Counsel will send the Claims Administrator the final settlement distribution list, including allocation of any un-awarded money that had been set aside for administrative error. Within 7 days of receipt of the final distribution list, the Claims
Page 17 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 18 of 46 PageID #:2780
Administrator shall issue and mail checks to the eligible Claimants in the amount reflected in the final settlement distribution list. The Claims Administrator will issue an IRS Form 1099 to each Claimant reflecting the amount paid to that individual. The Court finds that the payments shall constitute compensation for non-pecuniary damages and shall not be subject to any payroll deductions. The Parties acknowledge that no party or its attorneys are making any representations regarding the taxability or non-taxability of the payments to Claimants. As directed by EEOC or Section 1981 Class Counsel, the Claims Administrator shall take further steps in a timely manner to reach those Claimants who did not receive and/or deposit their settlement checks.
SURPLUS FUNDS FROM CONSENT DECREE 39. In the event that any portion of the Settlement Fund, including accrued interest, has not been distributed as required by this Decree after a period of 120 days has elapsed from the date on which the settlement checks were mailed by the Claims Administrator, then such remaining amounts from the Settlement Fund shall be provided to the Aurora/Quad County Chapter of the Urban League, a non-profit organization jointly identified by EEOC and YRC that serves the area of the YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation to further the job training and hiring of minority workers.
SPECIFIC INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS 40. The Court finds that the Chicago Ridge terminal closed on or before December 31, 2009, and that there are no operations currently in place at Chicago Ridge. There are approximately 51 members of the Settlement Class on active status at Chicago Heights. In addition, there are approximately 53 members ofthe Settlement Class on leave or layoff status at Chicago Heights.
Page 18 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 19 of 46 PageID #:2781
41. Chicago Heights is already subject to a Consent Decree issued by this Court in the consolidated cases of EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc. and YRC, Inc., Case Nos. 06 CV 4805 and 08 CV 5555 and William Bandy, et al. v. Roadway Express, Inc. and YRC, Inc., Case No. 10 CV 5305 ("Chicago Heights Consent Decree").
42. The Court has reviewed the Chicago Heights Consent Decree as amended by the Order issued on June 27, 2012 (case no. 06-cv-4805, docket no. 193), and finds that it adequately protects the interests of the Settlement Class and that there is no need for additional injunctive relief concerning the EEOC Settlement Class and the Section 1981 Settlement Class members in this case.
43. Within 10 days after Final Approval of the Consent Decree, YRC shall post copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit D to this Decree at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation on the bulletin boards usually used by YRC for posting governmental notices directed to employees. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of the Chicago Heights Consent Decree. YRC shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. YRC shall certify to the EEOC in writing within 10 days after Final Approval of the Consent Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. YRC shall permit the Monitor to enter YRC's Chicago bulk break dock operation premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 44. Counterparts. This Decree may be executed by the Parties in one or more counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. An executed photocopy shall be deemed an original. 45. Binding Upon Successors. The terms of this Decree shall be binding upon the
Page 19 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 20 of 46 PageID #:2782
present and future directors, officers, managers, agents, successors and assigns of YRC. YRC, and any successor(s) ofYRC, shall provide a copy of this Decree to any organization or person who proposes to acquire or merge with YRC, or any successor ofYRC, prior to the effectiveness of any such acquisition or merger.
46. Notices. Any notices to be given to the Parties under this Decree will be deemed sufficient if mailed by first class mail to:
Counsel for Plaintiffs The EEOC: Richard J. Mrizek, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. And: Intervenors' Counsel/Section 1981 Class Counsel: Randall Schmidt, Clinical Professor of Law, Director Employment Law Project, Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, University of Chicago Law School, 6020 S. University Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60637. Counsel for YRC: Kevin W. Shaughnessy, Baker & Hostetler LLP, 200 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 2300, Orlando, Florida 32801. 47. Entire Agreement. This Decree constitutes the entire agreement between YRC and Plaintiffs hereto with respect to the matters herein, and it supersedes all negotiations, representations, comments, contracts and writings prior to the date of this Consent Decree. 48. Interpretation and Severability. Whenever possible, each provision and term of this Decree shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid and enforceable; provided, however, that in the event any provision or term of this Decree should be determined to be or rendered invalid or unenforceable (by an Act of Congress or otherwise), all other provisions and terms of this Decree shall remain unaffected and in full force and effect to the extent permitted bylaw. 49. Modifications. YRC, EEOC, and Section 1981 Class Counsel may jointly agree,
Page 20 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 21 of 46 PageID #:2783
in writing, to modify the Consent Decree with the approval of the Court. 50. Enforceability. YRC, EEOC, and Section 1981 Class Counsel shall make a good
faith effort to defend this Decree from any legal challenge whether by appeal, collateral attack, or objection.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 51. If during the term of this Decree any party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other Parties of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party 10 business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within 10 business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 52. Except as is necessary to enforce the posting requirement in Paragraph 43, this Decree shall be in effect until 30 days after all money has been paid from the Settlement Fund and all disputes, if any, under Paragraph 43 have been resolved. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of the EEOC Chicago Ridge Title VII case only for the purpose of enforcing the posting requirement in Paragraph 43. Upon the latter ofthe expiration of the 30-day period or 30 days after all disputes, if any, have been resolved, the Court shall dismiss the Chicago Ridge Section 1981 case with prejudice.
Page 21 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 22 of 46 PageID #:2784

ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR:
For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 131 M Street, NE Washington, DC 20507
P. DAVID LOPEZ General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

ForYRC INC.
KEVIN W. SHAUGHNESSY Baker & Hostetler LLP 200 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801
COUNSEL FOR YRC INC.

JOHN C. HENDRICKSON Regional Attorney
GREGORYGOCHANOUR Supervisory Trial Attorney
RICHARD J. MRIZEK Trial Attorney
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison, Suite 2000 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 869-8117

Page 22 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 23 of 46 PageID #:2785
For INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS and the SECTION 1981 CLASS
RANDALL D. SCHMIDT Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic
of the University of Chicago law School 6020 S. University Ave. Chicago, IL 6063 7 (773) 702-9611
CAROL COPLAN BABBITT The Law Office of Carol Coplan Babbitt 35 E. Wacker Dr. Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 435-9775
CATHERINE A. CAPORUSSO Law Office of Catherine Caporusso 53 W. Jackson Suite 505 Chicago, IL 60604 312-933-0655
ENTERED: United States District Court Magistrate Judge Susan Cox
Date:
Page 23 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 24 of 46 PageID #:2786

EXHIBIT A

RELEASE AGREEMENT

I,

, for and in consideration of the sum of $

payable to me

pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Yellow Transp., 09

CV 7693 (N.D. Ill.), and Brown, et al. v. Yellow Transp., 08 CV 5908 (N.D. Ill.), on behalf of

myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever release, waive, remise,

acquit, and discharge YRC Inc., and Yellow Transportation, Inc., and their current and former

shareholders, directors, officers, managers, agents, creditors, employees, attorneys, insurers, and

for each of the foregoing, their respective parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns

(collectively, the Released Entities), from any and all claims and causes of action of any kind,

known or unknown, which I now have or ever have had under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights

Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and any other similar or related federal, state, or local

employment discrimination or civil rights law, regulation, or ordinance arising from or related to

the underlying facts and claims which were asserted in EEOC v. Yellow Transp., 09 C 7693

(N.D. Ill.), and Brown, et al. v. Yellow Transp., 08 C 5908 (N.D. Ill.).

I understand that by executing this Agreement, the Released Entities are not admitting any violation of my rights under statutory or common law. I also understand that this release is effective only so long as each of the payments due and owing under the Decree is paid to me. Should any payment fail to be made, the release is null and void.

Date

Signature

Page 1 of23

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 25 of 46 PageID #:2787

EXHIBITB

THIS IS A NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CLASS ACTIONSETTLEMENT THIS IS NOT A SUMMONS OR AN ORDER TO COME TO COURT

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

CHARLES BROWN, et al., on behalf of

)

themselves and similarly situated

)

African-American employees,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., and )

YRC,INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No.: 08 CV 5908 Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., and )

YRC, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No.: 09 CV 7693 Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

PRELIMINARY NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
This Notice is being sent to you, as ordered by the Court, to advise you of the preliminary approval of the settlement of two employment discrimination cases against the company formerly known as Yellow Transportation and now known as YRC Inc., with regard to its former terminal in Chicago Ridge, Illinois. In Brown v. Yellow, 08 CV 5908, the Plaintiffs (Charles Brown, Jeffrey Burks, Antonio Colon, James DeMoss, Jameson Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington,
Page 1 of9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 26 of 46 PageID #:2788
Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, and Michael Woods) individually and on behalf of a class of African-American employees and former employees brought suit alleging, among other things, that Yellow Transportation, Inc., and YRC Inc. ("YellowNRC") violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981 ("Section 1981"), by unlawfully discriminating against a class of African-American employees at YellowNRC's facility at 10301 South Harlem Avenue, Chicago Ridge, Illinois ("Chicago Ridge"), by fostering a hostile work environment based upon race, and unlawfully discriminated against its African-American employees in the terms and conditions of employment (the "Section 1981 case"). Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") filed suit (case number 09 CV 7693) against YellowNRC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., (the "EEOC case"), making similar claims. These cases are now consolidated for settlement purposes. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MUST NOW DECIDE WHAT ACTION YOU WILL TAKE IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE CLASS ACTION.
Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Read this notice carefully.
The only way to get a payment.
Write to the Court about why you don't like the settlement.
Ask to speak in Court about the fairness ofthe settlement.
Get no payment. Give up rights.
These rights and options-and the deadlines to exercise them-are explained in this notice. The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves the settlement, payments will be made after Claim Forms are reviewed. Please be patient.
Page 2 of9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 27 of 46 PageID #:2789
WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS BASIC INFORMATI0 N.........................................................................................4
1. Why Have I Received This Notice?................................................................................. 4 2. What Is This Lawsuit About? .......................................................................................... 4 3. Why Is This Lawsuit A Class Action? ............................................................................. 4 4. Why Is There A Settlement? ............................................................................................ 5 5. Who Is In The Settlement? .............................................................................................. 5
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS-WHAT YOU GET .....................................5
6. What Does The Settlement Provide? ............................................................................... 5 7. What Can I Get From The Settlement?............................................................................ 5
HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT---SUBMITING A CLAIM FORM
8. How Can I Get A Payment?............................................................................................. 6 9. When Would I Get My Payment? .................................................................................... 6
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU ...........................................................6
10. Do I Have A Lawyer In This Case? ................................................................................. 6 11. How Will The Lawyers Be Paid? .................................................................................... 6
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT ...............................................................6
12. How Do I Tell The Court That I Don't Like The Settlement? ........................................ 6 THE COURT'S FAIRN"ESS HEARING ...............................................................7
13. When And Where Will The Court Decide Whether To Approve The Settlement? ........ 7 14. Do I Have To Come To The Hearing? ................................................................................. 7 15. May I Speak At The Hearing? ......................................................................................... 7
IF YOU DO NOTHING ..........................................................................................8
16. What Happens If I do Nothing At All? ........................................................................... 8
GETTING MORE INFORMATION.....................................................................8
17. Are There More Details About The Setlement? .............................................................. 8 18. How Do I Get More Information? ................................................................................... 8
Page 3 of9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 28 of 46 PageID #:2790
BASIC INFORMATION
You have received this Notice because YellowNRC's personnel records show that you worked at Chicago Ridge some time on or after October 15, 2004 as a dock worker, hostler, spotter, janitor, supervisor, or clerical employee on the dock, either as a "casual," "10%," "regular," fulltime or other employee. This notice explains that you have legal rights and options that you may exercise now that a settlement has been proposed.
This lawsuit is about whether YellowNRC discriminated against African-American employees because oftheir race by fostering a racially hostile work environment at YellowNRC's Chicago Ridge workplace. Plaintiffs and the EEOC claim that the hostile work environment was created by harassing activities, including: the display of racially hostile symbols; racist graffiti; and racial epithets, slurs, and comments uttered by co-workers and supervisors. Plaintiffs and the EEOC also claim that YellowNRC discriminated against African-American employees in many other aspects of employment, that the company did not respond to repeated complaints by African-American employees about the workplace, and that management employees retaliated against employees who made complaints about discrimination.
YellowNRC maintains that this case should not be certified as a class action. YellowNRC also denies that it violated any law, including Section 1981 and Title VII, and denies that it discriminated against or created a hostile working environment for African-American employees at Chicago Ridge or Chicago Heights. YellowNRC has retained legal counsel to represent the company in the Section 1981 and EEOC cases.
The Court has not decided which side is right.
On May 13, 2011, the Court decided that the Section 1981 can go forward as a class action because it meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions in federal courts. The Court allowed, or "certified," this lawsuit as a class action because there is a sufficient number of African-American individuals who were employed by YellowNRC at Chicago Ridge between October 15, 2004, and the present to form a Class; there are legal questions and facts that are common to the Class Members; the Class Representatives' claims are typical of the claims of the rest of the Class; the Class Representatives and the lawyers representing the Class will fairly and adequately represent the Class Members' interests; the claims made by the Plaintiffs against YellowNRC are generally applicable to the Class; there are more important common legal questions and facts in this case than questions that affect only individuals; and this class action will be more efficient than having many individual lawsuits. The EEOC is not required to certify a class in its lawsuit. The EEOC case also sought relief for the group of former and current African-American employees who were victims of racial harassment and discrimination.
Page4 of9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 29 of 46 PageID #:2791
The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs, the EEOC or Defendants. Instead, all sides agreed to a settlement. That way, the parties avoid the cost of a trial, the risks involved in a trial, and the people affected will get compensation. The attorneys in the Section 1981 case ("Class Counsel") and the EEOC think the settlement is best for all of the members ofthe Class.
In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called "Class Representatives" sue on behalf of other people who have similar claims. In this case, the Class Representatives are Charles Brown, Jeffrey Burks, Antonio Colon, James DeMoss, Jameson Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, and Michael Woods. The Court has certified one class consisting of all current and former African-American employees who were employed by Yellow/YRC on its docks, in offices on the docks, or in the yard in the positions of dock worker, hostler, spotter, janitor, supervisor, or clerical (including as a "casual," "10%," "regular," full-time or other employee); and worked at Chicago Ridge at any time on or after October 15, 2004 (the "Class"). The Class also includes those African-American employees who were transferred in 2009 from Chicago Ridge to work at the Yellow/YRC facility at 2000 East Lincoln Highway, Chicago Heights, Illinois 60411 ("Chicago Heights"). The Class Representatives and individuals who are in the Class certified by the Court are covered by the settlement of these cases. All former and current employees who indicated that they were victims of discrimination and were willing to participate in the EEOC's lawsuit are also covered by the settlement.
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS-WHAT YOU GET
The settlement provides that Yellow/YRC will pay the aggregate sum of Eleven Million Dollars ($11,000,000.00) to settle these cases. The $11,000,000.00 shall be distributed to the Class Representatives, the Class Members, and Class Counsel.
You may be eligible to get a payment from the settlement for the harm you believe you suffered as a result of the alleged racially hostile work environment at Yellow/YRC's facility at Chicago Ridge. The EEOC shall determine the amount of each monetary award based on a point system developed by the EEOC and Class Counsel. This point system will take into account several factors, including your length of employment, dates of employment, job assignments, the severity of the alleged harassment or discrimination, the duration of the alleged harassment or discrimination, the extent of the alleged harm, whether you allegedly received more difficult work assignments because of race, whether you allegedly received harsher or more frequent discipline because of race, whether you were allegedly denied opportunities to be a hostler/spotter, whether you complained of discrimination, your participation and cooperation with the EEOC and the Class Counsel in the litigation of these cases, and the overall strength of your claim.
Page 5 of9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 30 of 46 PageID #:2792
HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT-SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM
To receive a payment from the settlement fund you must submit the enclosed Claim Form on or before~_, 2012, to:
First Class, Inc. 5410 W. Roosevelt Rd. Unit 222 Chicago, Illinois 60644
The Claim Form must be actually received by First Class, Inc., on or before such date in order to be considered timely and for you to be paid. It is your obligation to make sure First Class, Inc., receives your Claim Form before the due date. All Claim Forms must be signed under penalty of perjury to be considered.
If you are determined to be eligible for settlement payment, you will receive a check after the Court reviews all of the proposed payments to Class Members. This process may take some time, and the parties do not expect that payments will be made until sometime in the spring of 2013. Please be patient.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
The Court has decided that the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic of the University of Chicago Law School in Chicago, Illinois, the Law Office of Carol Coplan Babbitt in Chicago, Illinois, and the Law Office of Catherine A. Caporusso in Chicago, Illinois are qualified to represent you and all Class Members. Together, these lawyers are called "Class Counsel." Lawyers for the EEOC also have been seeking relief for those African-American workers who believe they were victims of discrimination or harassment at Chicago Ridge and agreed to participate.
The settlement provides that the Class Counsel will receive $1,100,000.00 in payment to them of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in pursuing this litigation on behalf of the Class Representatives and the Class. The Court will be asked to approve the attorneys' fees and costs at the Fairness Hearing described on page 7, in the answer to Question 13. Neither the lawyers for the EEOC nor the government will receive any payment for their involvement in either the EEOC or the Section 1981 case
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You can tell the Court that you don't agree with the settlement or some part of it by "objecting" to the settlement. Objecting is simply telling the Court that you don't like something about the
Page 6 of9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 31 of 46 PageID #:2793

settlement. You must give reasons why you think the Court should not approve the settlement or why you don't like the settlement or some part of it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter saying that you object to the settlement in Brown v. Yellow, Case No. 08 CV 5908. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, signature, and the reasons you object to the settlement. Mail the objection to these four different places:

Clerk ofthe Court United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street 20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604

CLASS COUNSEL: Randall D. Schmidt Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic 6020 S. University Ave. Chicago, Illinois 6063 7

EEOC: Richard J. Mrizek Trial Attorney U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison, Suite 2000 Chicago, Illinois 60661

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL: Kevin W. Shaughnessy Baker & Hostetler LLP 200 S. Orange Avenue Suite 2300 Orlando, Florida 32801

You need to make sure that your objections are received by these four different places on or before September_, 2012.

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing at which time the Court will consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed settlement (the "Fairness Hearing"). This hearing will be held on September__, 2012, at _ _.m. in Room 1330, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604. At this hearing the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. The Court will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement. The Court will also rule upon the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs. We do not know how long these decisions will take.
No. Class Counsel and the EEOC will answer any questions that the Court may have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection, you don't have to come to the Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it's not necessary.
You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter saying that it is your "Notice of Intention to Appear in Brown v. Yellow." Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, and signature. Your Notice of Intention to
Page 7 of9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 32 of 46 PageID #:2794

Appear must be received no later than _ _ _, 2012, and be sent to the Clerk of the Court, Class Counsel, the EEOC and Defense Counsel, at the four addresses on pages 6-7, in the answer to Question 12.
IF YOU DO NOTHING

If you do nothing, you'll get no money from this settlement. But you won't be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against YellowNRC about the legal issues in this case, ever again.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION

This Notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are in a Consent Decree. You can get a copy of the Consent Decree by writing to Randall D. Schmidt, Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, 6020 S. University Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60637, or by visiting: www.YRCClassAction.com.

For more information, visit the website YRCClassAction.com, where you will find the Consent Decree, the Court's Order certifying the Class, the Corrected Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs submitted, and the Defendants' Answer to the Corrected Amended Complaint. You may also call or write to Class Counsel with any questions regarding this class action. The contact information for Class Counsel is:
'
Randall D. Schmidt Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic
6020 S. University Ave. Chicago, IL 60637 (773) 702-9611

Carol Coplan Babbitt Law Office of Carol Coplan Babbitt
35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 435-9775

Catherine Caporusso Law Office of Catherine Caporusso
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 505 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 933-0655

Page 8 of9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 33 of 46 PageID #:2795

If you have any questions regarding the EEOC litigation, please contact:
Richard J. Mrizek Trial Attorney
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869-8117
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE mE CLERK OF THE COURT.

Dated: June_, 2012

CLERK, U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois

I
L__

Page 9 of9

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 34 of 46 PageID #:2796
EXHIBITC
CLAIM FORM IMPORTANT: Your Claim Form MUST ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR by DATE. It is your obligation to make sure that the Claims Administrator actually receives your Claim Form by DATE. INSTRUCTIONS
1. It is important to read and follow these instructions carefully, as well as those contained in the letter that accompanied this Claim Form. Failure to follow these instructions may result in you being ineligible to receive a monetary award in this case.
2. If the Claims Administrator does not receive this Claim Form by DATE, your claim will be rejected and you will lose all rights to receive any money from this settlement. You must mail or deliver your Claim Form to:
First Class, Inc. 5410 W. Roosevelt Rd. Unit 222 Chicago, IL 60644
3. You must sign, under penalty of perjury, and date the Claim Form on page 12.
4. All questions pertain to your experiences at the Chicago Ridge facility. Do not answer the questions based upon experiences at other YRC facilities.
5. If you have insufficient space to answer a question, you may continue your answer on additional sheets of paper. Please write your name, social security number, and the appropriate question number on any additional sheets of paper you include.
6. Answer all questions as fully and completely as you can, even if you have provided the same or similar information to the EEOC or the Class Counsel in the past. If you are uncertain or cannot fully recall certain information, you may indicate that fact in your answers.
7. You must fill out this form, even if you have sat for a deposition or if you have been previously interviewed by the EEOC or the Class Counsel.
8. Please update us if any ofyour contact information changes.
Page 1 of 12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 35 of 46 PageID #:2797

PERSONAL INFORMATION

1. Name (First, Middle, Last)

2. Street Address (including Apartment Number, if applicable)

3. City

State

Zip Code

4. Social Security Number

5.
Race

6.
E-mail Address

7. Home Phone Number

Best Time to Call This Number

8. Work Phone Number

Best Time to Call This Number

9. Cell Phone Number

Best Time to Call This Number

10.
Phone Number ofRelative or Other Person Who Knows How to Contact You

11. Date of Birth

12. Please list any other name(s) you used while employed at Yellow:

Name

Dates You Used This Name

Name

Dates You Used This Name

Page 2 of 12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 36 of 46 PageID #:2798
EMPLOYMENT WITH YELLOW AT CHICAGO RIDGE 13. Job titles you worked under while at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility (for example
"dockworker", "hostler", 'janitor", "supervisor"): 14. Brief description ofjob duties for each position:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
15. Dates of employment at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility: 16. List any extended periods (more than 2 weeks) you were on lay off:

Movement From The Casual Position to a Permanent Position

17. Do you believe that you were ever denied the opportunity to move from the "Casual"

position to the seniority list position or "10%" position or delayed in moving from the Casual

position to the seniority list position or 10% position because of your race?

Yes

No

lf"yes", please describe the basis for your claim, including when this occurred and the name and

race of who you believe was promoted from the Casual position to the seniority list position or

10% instead of you:

Page 3 of12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 37 of 46 PageID #:2799

Promotion to Hostler or a Spotter

18. Were you interested in becoming a Hostler or Spotter at Chicago Ridge?

Yes

No

If"yes", please describe when you were interested and what you did to seek a position:

19. Do you believe that you ever denied the opportunity to become a Hostler or Spotter or

improperly passed over for the position because of your race?

Yes

No

If "yes", please describe how you were denied the opportunity, including when and whether this

occurred more than once:

CLAIMS OF RACIAL HARASSMENT

20. Did you ever personally~ racist graffiti at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility?

Yes

No

If "yes", describe what you saw, when you saw it, where in the facility you saw it, and how often

you saw it:

Page 4 of 12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 38 of 46 PageID #:2800

21. Did you ever hear about any racist graffiti at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility when you

were working there?

Yes

No

If"yes", describe what you heard and when you heard about it:

22. Did you ever personally see or hear about any racist drawings or cartoons at Yellow's

Chicago Ridge facility?

Yes

No

lf"yes", describe the drawings or cartoons, whether you personally saw them, whether you heard

about them, when they occurred, and where they were located:

23. Did you ever personally see a noose or rope you believed to be a noose at Yellow's

Chicago Ridge facility that you believe was displayed to either intimidate or offend Black

employees?

Yes

No

If "yes", describe what you saw, when you saw it, where in the facility you saw it, and on how

many occasions. If you saw such a noose or rope more than once, describe each occurrence:

Page 5 of 12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 39 of 46 PageID #:2801

24. While you were working at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility, did you ever hear about a

noose or rope you believed to be a noose at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility that you believe was

displayed to either intimidate or offend Black employees?

Yes

No

If "yes", describe what you heard, when you heard about it, and where in the facility you were

told it was displayed. If you heard about such a noose or rope more than once, describe each

occurrence:

25. Have you ever personally heard anyone at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility, either a

coworker or supervisor, make any kind of racist remark?

Yes

No

If "yes", describe what you heard, who said it, whether it was a supervisor or coworker, whether

it was directed at you or overheard by you, and when you heard it, on how many occasions, and

whether you reported it to Yellow, to whom, and Yellow's response. If you heard more than one

racist remark, please describe each occurrence:

CLAIMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Working Conditions

26. Did any Yellow employee at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility, whether a supervisor or

coworker, ever refuse to work with you because of your race?

Yes

No

If"yes", please provide details of the incident, including who refused to work with you and when

the incident occurred; ifthis occurred more than once, describe each occurrence:

Page 6 of 12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 40 of 46 PageID #:2802

Discipline and Work Rules

27. Do you believe that you ever received discipline for conduct for which a White employee

was not, or would not have been, disciplined?

Yes

No

If "yes", please provide details of the incident(s), including when the incident occurred, and if

this occurred more than once:

28. While employed at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility, did you ever observe any

differences in the way Black and White employees were treated in regards to discipline?

Yes

No

If"yes", please describe:

29. Do you believe that you were treated differently than White employees regarding access

to and privileges of using the break room and restrooms?

Yes

No

Page 7 of 12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 41 of 46 PageID #:2803
If "yes", please provide details of the incident(s), including when the incident occurred, and if this occurred more than once:

30. While employed at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility, did you observe any differences

between Black and White employees regarding access to and privileges of using the break room

and restrooms?

Yes

No

If "yes", please provide details of the incident(s), including when the incident occurred, and if

this occurred more than once:

31. Do you believe that you were treated differently than White employees were treated by

Yellow regarding behavior on the dock such as talking, smoking, use of cell phones, etc.?

Yes

No

If "yes", please provide details of the incident(s), including when the incident occurred, and if

this occurred more than once:

Page 8 of 12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 42 of 46 PageID #:2804

32. While employed at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility, did you observe any differences

between how Black and White employees were treated by Yellow regarding behavior on the

dock such as talking, smoking, use of cell phones, etc.?

Yes

No

If "yes", please provide details of the incident(s), including when the incident occurred, and if

this occurred more than once:

Work Assignments

33. Do you believe that you ever received a less desirable type of work assignment because

of your race?

Yes

No

If "yes", please describe the less desirable work, including when the work was assigned, and if

this occurred more than once:

34. While employed at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility, did you ever observe any

differences between the type or amount of work assigned to Black and White employees?

Yes

No

If "yes", please describe what you observed and approximately when these differences were

Page 9 of 12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 43 of 46 PageID #:2805 observed:

COMPLAINTS

35. Did you ever complain in writing to Yellow about any racial harassment or

discrimination that you experienced, witnessed, or heard about at Yellow's Chicago Ridge

facility?

Yes

No

If "yes", please state what you complained about, to whom you complained and when. Also,

please describe any response you received from Yellow:

36. Did you ever make a verbal complaint to any supervisors, managers, or human resources

personnel at Yellow about any racial harassment or discrimination that you experienced,

witnessed, or heard about at Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility?

Yes

No

If "yes", please state what you complained about, to whom you complained and when. Also,

please describe any response you received from Yellow:

Page 10 of 12

---------------------------------
Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 44 of 46 PageID #:2806

37. Did you ever file a Charge of Discrimination regarding Yellow's Chicago Ridge facility

with the EEOC, the Illinois Department of Human Rights, or any other local government fair

employment agency?

Yes

No

If "yes", please state with what agency you filed your Charge, the Charge number of your

complaint, whether your case went to court (and if so, the name of the court where you filed and

your case number) and any relief you received as a result of your Charge:

EFFECT OF THE DISCRIMINATION
38. Describe how the claims of racial harassment or discrimination you have described above affected you or made you feel (including any emotional pain or suffering).

PARTICIPATION IN THIS LITIGATION 39. Describe any effort that you made to participate in this litigation including time spent looking for documents, attending depositions, or communicating with the EEOC or the Class Counsel.
Page II of 12

C• ase: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 45 of 46 PageID #:2807

CERTIFICATION
I ___________ declare under penalty of perjury that all of the information
(Print Name)
on this Claim Form is true and correct.

Signature of Claimant

Date

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Your Claim Form must be received on or before

. A Claim Form received

later than

will not be accepted. The Claim Form must be mailed or delivered to:

First Class, Inc. 5410 W. Roosevelt Rd. Unit 222 Chicago, IL 60644

Page 12 of 12

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 Document #: 192 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 46 of 46 PageID #:2808

EXIDBITD

NOTICE TO YRC EMPLOYEES

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in
the Northern District Court of Illinois in EEOC v. Yellow Transportation, Inc., et al., 09 CV 7693 (N.D. Ill.), and Brown, eta/. v. Yellow Transportation, Inc., eta/., 08 CV 5908 (N.D. Ill.),
resolving litigation filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against YRC.

In its suit, the EEOC alleged that YRC discriminated against African-American dockworkers, spotters, and janitors at YRC's Chicago Ridge facilities on the basis of their race by subjecting them to a hostile work environment and discriminating against them in the terms and conditions of employment including subjecting them to unequal discipline and unequal work assignments. The resolution by YRC of any and all claims or potential claims set forth under the Consent Decree is not an admission of liability on the part ofthe Company.

To resolve the case, YRC and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree that provides monetary relief to eligible individuals. YRC will not discriminate against any employee on the basis of race or retaliate against any person because (s)he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree.

If you believe you have been discriminated against, you should contact the Chicago Heights Human Resources Coordinator (currently, Kendall Calhoun), any manager or supervisor, or file a report on EthicsPoint at 1-866-ETHICSP or www.ethicspoint.com immediately. The Company cannot respond to issues that are not brought to its attention. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you also may contact Preston Pugh (312-768-7800), who serves as a monitor at Chicago Heights. Finally, you may contact the EEOC at 312-353-8195. The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The EEOC charges no fee and has a TDD number.

TillS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE

This Notice must remain posted for the time and in the manner as specified in the Consent Decree and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other
J a material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be
directed to YRC Settlement, EEOC, 500West Madison Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, Illinois 60661.

q-).c;/()-.

~

...

Date

Magistrate Judge Susan Cox

United States District Court

Page 1 of1

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

) No. 09 C 7693

)

)

v.

) District Judge James F. Holderman

)

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., ) Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

an Illinois corporation, and YRC, INC, )

an Illinois corporation,

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought this civil rights case against Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc (collectively referred to as “defendants”). The EEOC alleges that defendants subjected a class oAf frican-American employees to racial harassment and discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).1 Before the Court is the EEOC’s m otion to compel defendants to disclose a list of all African-American employees, with their last known addresses andphone numbers, employed at the facility where and when the alleged harassment and discrimination occurred. Defendants oppose this motion, arguing that it is not procedurally proper and that the litssought by the EEOC exceeds the scope of this case. Defendants also request that if the motion is granted, we narrow the list and put restrictions on the

142 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

Page 1 of 10

manner in which the EEOC m ay contact individuals on the list. For th e following reasons, the EEOC’s motion is granted [dkt. 30].
BACKGROUND Defendant YRC was created when defendantYellow Transportation and non-party Roadway, two truck transportation companies, merged operations. This case pertains to defendants’ facility in Chicago Ridge, Illinois during the period of January 1, 2004 through the close of the Chicago Ridge facility, som etime in 2009. 2 That f acility was operated by Yellow Transportation until approximately October 2008, when YRC assumed control of the facility.3 The EEOC alleges that African-American employees at the facility were subjected to harassment and different terms and conditions of employment because of their race4. Specifically, the EEOC alleges that the employees were subjected “to a work environm ent with hangman’s nooses, racially derogatory com ments, racial epithets, and racist graffiti.”5 The EEOC further charges that these em ployees were given more difficult and tim e consuming work, subjected to more frequent and greater discipline, and scrutinized more intensely and held to more restrictive work rules.6 All of this, it is alleged, while these employees received lower pay and/or less favorable job assignments.7 The EEOC brings this suit on behalf of fourteen named employees and a class of unnamed African-American employees.8 While all of the fourteen nam ed employees were employed on the main dock or in the yard as a dockman, dock supervisor, spotter, or term inal janitor, the complaint does not limit the class to

2See EEOC’s mot. to compel. 3Compl. ¶¶ 14, 20. 4Id. 5Id. 6Id. 7Id. 8Compl. ¶ 17.

Page 2 of 10

employees that worked these jobs. W e note that while the word “class” is used, t his is not a traditional class action brought under Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 23. Instead, the EEOC brings this action pursuant to its authority to proceedon behalf of a class provided under Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII.9
DISCUSSION The EEOC brings this motion seeking to compel defendants to produce a list of all AfricanAmerican employees that worked at the Chicago Ridge facility from January 1, 2004, until the facility was closed, sometime in 2009. The EEOC argues that without such a list, it will be unable to identify all of its class members or potential witnesses. Defendants oppose this motion on two grounds. First, defendants argue this motion fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 because the EEOC never formally requested the list from defendants. Second, defendants argue the list exceeds the scope of permissible discovery. In the alternative, defendants argue that if they are required to turn over such a list, it should be nrarowed to the job functionsof the fourteen named employees. Defendants also request that we prohibit the EEOC from contacting any individuals on the list until the EEOC and defendants are able to agree on a proper procedure.
A. EEOC’s Motion to Compel First, defendants argue that this m otion is im proper because the EEOC never form ally
requested the list it now seeks. Rule 37 permits a party to move the court for an order compelling production if:

942 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

Page 3 of 10

(i) a deponent fails to answer a questi on asked under Rule 30 or 31; (ii) a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4); (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or (iv) a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted--or fails to permit inspection--as requested under Rule 34.10 Defendants maintain that none of these situations are present because the EEOC never served the defendants with any of the four requests listed baove. However, as the EEOC notes, this Court gave the EEOC leave to file this motion so that the Court could resolve the dispute, which was brought to the Court’s attention at a status hearing concerning this case.11 Furthermore, it was clear to the Court then, based on statements made in court, and now, based on defendants’ response to this motion, that defendants do not wish to turn over thelist requested. It would be a waste of time and resources to deny this motion only to have the EEOC re-file it once a formal request is made. This Court has broad discretion in discovery m atters.12 And we believe it be st to resolve discovery disputes expeditiously. Theref ore, the C ourt will not deny the EEOC’s m otion based on the formality raised by defendants, which ignores the context in which this dispute arose.
Second, defendants argue that the list requested by the EEOC exceeds the scope of discovery. Specifically, defendants argue that the EEOC has presented no evidence that the allegations in its com plaint applies to a class of claimants as broad as all Af rican-American employees at the facility. Defendants argue thatthe named claimants were limited to employees that worked on the main dock or in the yard as a dockman, dock supervisor, spotter, or terminal janitor. Defendants contend that a list of all em ployees at the f acility, including those working administrative jobs, is over inclusive. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that, “[p]arties
10Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 11Dkt. 29. 12Packman v. Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646 (7th Cir. 2001).
Page 4 of 10

may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged m atter that is relevant to any party' s claim or defense.”13 Relevant information is any information that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adm issible evidence.”14 For support of its position that the list sought her e is irrelevant and over broad, defendants point to a dsitrict court case fromCalifornia, where the EEOC was denied a list of employees because the courtdetermined that the list sought was overly broad1.5 There the EEOC sought a list of all employees who worked in the state of California.16 The court determined such a list was over broad and limited the list to employees in the specific counties that fell within the scope of the complaint.17
We do not believe that i n this case the EEO C’s request for a list of African-Am erican employees at one facility for the time period in which the discrimination is alleged to have taken place is over broad. The com plaint focuses on harassm ent and discrimination against AfricanAmerican employees at one particular facility, during a spec ific time period. Therefore, a list of African-American employees at that facility employed during that time period falls within the scope of the complaint. The fact that the currently named claimants had certain jobs does not mean, in the Court’s view, that the harassment and discrimination could not have extended to other job functions at the facility. Furthermore, defendants reliance on E.E.O.C. v. Jillian’s of Indianapolis, IN, Inc. is inapposite, as t hat opinion dealt with a m otion for summary judgement where the EEOC had expanded a lawsuit to include a claim of nationwide discrimination, when the underlying EEOC
13Fed. R. Civ P. 26(b)(1) 14Id. 15E.E.O.C. v. ABM Industries Inc., No. 07 C 01428, 2008 WL 5385618, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2008). 16Id. at *5-8. 17Id.
Page 5 of 10

investigation included only a single facility.18 Here, we are dealing with a motion to compel a list of employees from one facility, which was the facility the EEOC investigated initially.
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the defendants are compelled to turn over a list of African-American employees. However, defendants argue that such a list should be limited to the job functions of the named claimants. As already stated, however, the Court does not believe a list of all African-Am erican employees at the facility is over broad. Although the com plaint’s named class members worked on the m ain dock or in the yard as a dock man, dock supervisor, spotter or janitor, does not mean the conduct alleged is limited to these employees. And nowhere in the complaint can such a inference be made. Therefore, the Court finds that a list of all AfricanAmerican employees, with last known addresses and phone numbers, that were employed at the Chicago Ridge, Illinois facility from January 1, 2004 until the facility’s close should be produced to the EEOC forthwith. The Court further believe s that prompt production of this list m ay well facilitate resolution of this case.
B. Defendants’ Request to Prohibit Communication
Finally, defendants request that the Court require the EEOC to work with the defendants to prepare and exchange among themselves sets ofproposed guidelines to govern any communications between the EEOC and the current and former employees of defendants. Defendants further ask this Court to prohibit communications between the EEOC and defendants’ current and former employees until such a procedure is agreed upon. Defendants argue that such a prohibition is necessary in order
18279 F. Supp. 2d 974, 978-83 (S.D. Ind. Jun. 16, 2003)(stating, “the eventual lawsuit must arise from the ‘scope of the investigation.’”).
Page 6 of 10

to keep such communications confined to the proper scope of discovery. According to defendants, the proper scope of discovery is identifying dockworkers, dock supervisors, spotters, and janitors who are victims of or witnesses to the alleged m isconduct. In Gulf Oil Company v. Bernard, the Supreme Court recognized the potential for abuse in class action lawsuits, and for this reas on, district courts are generally given the authorityto broadly control the conduct of parties and counsel in class actions. 19 However, the district court m ust restrain its authority when lim iting communications.20 Specifically, the Supreme Court held that “an order limiting communications between parties and potential class members should be based on a clear record and specific findings that reflect a weighing of the need for a limitation and the potential interference with the rights of the parties.”21 Although Gulf Oil applied specifically to class actions brought under Rule 23, the EEOC, nonetheless, seeks relief for the benefit of individual claimants and, therefore, we believe it should be extended to this case as well.22
For support that this prohibition is necessar y, defendants rely on a single district court opinion from another circuit, Hoffman v. United Telecommunications, Inc .23 In Hoffman, the plaintiffs, which included the EEOC, sought leave ocf ourt to send a letter to defendants’ current and former female employees as well as female applicants for employment.24 The plaintiffs argued that they needed to send this letter, which contained a questionnaire, to discover specific instances of
19452 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1981). 20Gulf Oil Co., 452 at 101. 21Id. 22See E.E.O.C. v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of America, Inc., 960 F.Supp. 164, 168 n. 2 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 1997); see also E.E.O.C. v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of America, Inc., 102 F.3d 869, 870 (7th Cir. 1996)(citing to Gulf Oil and stating that each party has a right to communicate with class members.) 23111 F.R.D. 332 (D. Kan. Mar 28, 1986) 24Hoffman, 111 F.R.D. at 333.
Page 7 of 10

sexual discrimination.25 Defendants objected, arguing that the proposed letter was nothing more than a “mass solicitation of claims with no rational basis for contacting the proposed recipients.”26 The proposed recipients were not limited by any time frame.27 Essentially, any female individual that had some sort of employment contact with defendants was a proposed recipient. In determining whether the court would grant the plaintiffs leave, the court used the balancing test articulated in Gulf Oil.28 The cour t determined that the need for limitation - to prevent “a substantial risk of causing confusion, misunderstanding about the case, and unnecessary disruption to the business operations of defendants and working relationships of employees” - outweighed any interference with the plaintiffs’ rights.29 In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the plaintiffs already had much of the information sought in the questionnaire.30
In addition to preventing the questionnaire, defendants also sought to prohibit more broadly the plaintiffs’ ability to com municate with defendants’ employees or applicants. 31 The court overruled the defendants’ motion, noting that the Gulf Oil decision instructed courts to restrict communication only when presented with specific“facts, supported by the record, as distinguished from stereotyped or conclusory statements.”32 In other words, when the court was shown a specific questionnaire, which presented specific problem s, the c ourt found reason to lim it the communication. However, when presented witha broader bar on communication, which lacked an identifiable reason to limit communication, the court did not bar communication.

25Id. 26Id. 27Id. 28Id. at 334-35. 29Id. at 336. 30Id. at 335. 31Id. at 336. 32Hoffman, 111 F.R.D. at 336-37.

Page 8 of 10

The Hoffman opinion does not persuade us that we should prohibit the EEOC from communicating with the individuals on the list.Unlike the questionnaire presented inHoffman, the defendants in this case present no specific factsthat support a need for limiting communication. The plaintiffs in Hoffman sought to communicate with all former employees, current employees, and applicants that were woman, with no reference to time. But here, the EEOC wishes to limit the class to a specific time frame, January 1, 2004 to the close of the facility, and only to the one facility at issue. Furthermore, we are not presented with a specific communication, like the questionnaire in Hoffman, that presented an identifiable problem . Instead, we find the broad com munication limitation sought in Hoffman, which was denied, more analogous to this situation.
The decision in Gulf Oil requires specific findings based on a clear record.33 Defendants argue that such a protection is required because the EEOC has already displayed its willingness to forgo proper procedure. For exam ple, argue defendants, the EEOC filed this m otion to compel, without making a proper request from defendants first. However, as already stated, the Court does not find this motion improper and, therefore, defendants’ argument is unavailing. Defendants also argue that the EEOC failed to follow its own procedures when it not ified the defendants of the EEOC’s determ ination with regard to a claim ant’s charge of discrim ination prior to notifying defendants and prior to receiving de fendants response to the charge. Even if the EEOC failed to follow its own procedure as to this one claimant, we do not believe this provides a sufficient factual basis to is sue the broad communication limitation requested by defendants. W hile this Court encourages the parties to work together to agree upon com munication procedures, we are not presented with sufficient specific evidence to limit communication at this time.

33Gulf Oil Co., 452 at 101.

Page 9 of 10

Defendants also a rgue that such a prohibition is necessary to prevent

ex parte

communications. Rule 4.2 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 83.54.2 of the

Northern District of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit ex parte communication with

the defendants’ current managerial employees. The EEOC does not disagree with this point, but

notes that this prohibition applies onl y to current m anagerial employees, not non-m anagerial

employees or former managerial employees. As to managerial employees, the EEOC is willing to

work with defendants to ensure improper ex parte communications do not occur. At this point the

Court has no reason to suspect any improper behavior on the part of the EEOC and, thus, will not

place any prohibition on communication.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants are compelled to turn over a list of all AfricanAmerican employees, with their last known addresses and phone numbers, employed at their Chicago Ridge, Illinois facility from January 1, 2004 until the facility closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: July 21, 2010

______________________________________ SUSAN E. COX U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 10 of 10

 
 Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 1 of 24
COX,PROTO
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09−cv−07693

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. et al Assigned to: Honorable Susan E. Cox Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/10/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Ethan M.M. Cohen United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8104 Fax: 312−353−8555 Email: ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard John Mrizek U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8117 Fax: (312) 869−8124 Email: richard.mrizek@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bradley S. Fiorito Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8109 Fax: (312) 869−8124 Email: bradley.fiorito@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah Lois Hamilton Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8110 Email: deborah.hamilton@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Grayson Sang Walker U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison St. Ste 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 312 869 8118

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 2 of 24
Email: grayson.walker@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886−9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne B. Szromba United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8122 Email: jeanne.szromba@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Hendrickson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8099 Fax: (312) 869−8124 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Yellow Transportation, Inc.

represented by Christopher L Nybo Much Shelist PC 191 North wacker Drive Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 521−2000 Fax: 312−521−2100 Email: cnybo@muchshelist.com TERMINATED: 02/22/2013
Erin Bolan Hines Baker Hostetler LLP 191 N. Wacker Drive Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 416−6215 Email: ehines@bakerlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory V Mersol Baker &Hostetler 1900 East Ninth Street Suite 3200 Cleveland, OH 44114−3485 216−861−7935 Email: gmersol@bakerlaw.com PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 3 of 24
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Warren Seegers Baker &Hostetler Llp 200 S. Orange Ave. Suite 2300 Suntrust Center Orlando, FL 32801 (407) 649−4023 Email: jseegers@bakerlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Taylor Williams Baker &Hostetler LLP 1900 E. Ninth St. Suite 3200 Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 861−7682 Email: jwilliams@bakerlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph L. Chairez Baker &Hostetler Llp 600 Anton Boulevard Suite 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 966−8822 Email: jchairez@bakerlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin W. Shaughnessy Baker &Hostetler, LLP 200 South Orange Ave Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 (407) 649−4000 Email: kshaughnessy@bakerlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Wolf O'Donnell Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 609−7500 Email: modonnell@vedderprice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tiffany Lynn Cummins Baker &Hostetler Llp Suntrust Center, Ste. 2300 200 South Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 (407) 649−4000 Email: tcummins@bakerlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tracey L. Ellerson Baker &Hostetler LLP 200 S. Orange Avenue Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 4 of 24

(407) 649−4000 Email: tellerson@bakerlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant YRC, Inc.

represented by Christopher L Nybo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/22/2013

Erin Bolan Hines (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Warren Seegers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Taylor Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin W. Shaughnessy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margo Wolf O'Donnell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tiffany Lynn Cummins (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tracey L. Ellerson (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Charles Brown

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt The Law Office of Carol Coplan Babbitt 35 E. Wacker Dr. Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 435−9775 Fax: (312) 782−4519 Email: carol@ccbabbittlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic 6020 South University Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 (773) 702−9611 Email: r−schmidt@uchicago.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 5 of 24

Law Office of Catherine Caporusso 53 W. Jackson Suite 505 Chicago, IL 60604 312−933−0655 Fax: 312−347−3272 Email: ccaporusso@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Jeffery Burks

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Antonio Colon

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant James Demoss

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Jamison Dixon

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 6 of 24

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Clark Faulkner

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Kenneth George

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Leonard Gregory

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Marshun Hill

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 7 of 24

Movant Mack Leonard
Movant Cedric Muse
Movant Laroy Washington
Movant Darrell Williams

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine A. Caporusso

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 8 of 24

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Charles Woods

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Michael Woods

represented by Carol Coplan Babbitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall D. Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine A. Caporusso (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/10/2009 12/10/2009 12/10/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 12/15/2009 01/26/2010
02/01/2010
02/22/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Jury Demand. (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Ethan M.M. Cohen (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by John C. Hendrickson (Hendrickson, John) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable James F. Holderman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan E. Cox. (kjd, ) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Richard John Mrizek (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. YRC, Inc. waiver sent on 12/23/2009, answer due 2/22/2010; Yellow Transportation, Inc. waiver sent on 12/23/2009, answer due 2/22/2010. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Deborah Lois Hamilton (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. by Margo Wolf O'Donnell (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 02/22/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 9 of 24

02/22/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010 03/08/2010 03/08/2010 03/12/2010 03/18/2010 05/13/2010
05/13/2010 05/13/2010
05/13/2010 05/17/2010
05/21/2010 05/24/2010 05/25/2010 05/25/2010 05/25/2010

9 ANSWER to Complaint And Defenses by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc.(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
10 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
11 Amended ANSWER to Complaint And Defenses by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc.(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
12 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. (Amended) (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−4591698. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ellerson, Tracey) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−4591782. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
15 REQUEST for Clerk of Court to refund filing fee in the amount of 50.00, receipt no. 4591751, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ellerson, Tracey) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
16 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: The Applications of Tracey L. Ellerson and Kevin W. Shaughnessy to appear pro hac vice on behalf of the defendants 13 14 are granted. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
17 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for discovery Status (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Form 52 − Report of the Parties Planning Meeting)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
18 JOINT NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion for discovery 17 before Honorable James F. Holderman on 5/18/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
19 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for discovery Status (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Exhibit A − Report of the Parties Planning Meeting)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
20 Notice of Amended Motion NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion for discovery 19 before Honorable James F. Holderman on 5/18/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
21 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Parties' joint motion for a status to report on the parties' proposed discovery schedule 17 is moot. Parties' joint amended motion for a status to report on the parties' proposed discovery schedule 19 is granted. Status hearing is set for 5/25/2010 at 9:00 AM for entry of scheduling order. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
22 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Yellow Transportation, Inc. by Christopher L Nybo (Nybo, Christopher) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
23 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant YRC, Inc. by Christopher L Nybo (Nybo, Christopher) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
24 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: ENTER STANDING ORDER RELATING TO THE DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
25 Standing Order Relating To The Discovery Of Electronically Stored Information. Signed by the Honorable James F. Holderman on 5/25/2010: Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
26 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman:Status hearing held on 5/25/2010 and is continued for 7/15/2010 at 9:00 AM for entry of scheduling order. This case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Cox for report and recommendation on parties' proposed discovery schedule. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 10 of 24

05/28/2010 06/02/2010 06/10/2010 06/17/2010 06/24/2010 06/30/2010 07/02/2010 07/09/2010
07/09/2010
07/09/2010 07/12/2010 07/15/2010
07/15/2010
07/21/2010

27 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER:Case referred to the Honorable Susan E. Cox pursuant to Local Rule 72.1 for report and recommendation on the parties' proposed discovery schedule. Signed by Executive Committee on 5/28/2010. (gmr, ) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
28 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing set for 6/10/10 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/10/10: (For further details see minute order). (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
30 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
31 MEMORANDUM by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. in Opposition to motion to compel 30 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Correspondence to EEOC dated January 13, 2010, # 2 Exhibit B − Correspondence to EEOC dated September 15, 2009)(Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
32 REPLY by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to memorandum in opposition to motion, 31 , MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel 30 (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
33 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Susan E. Cox for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: discovery disputes and settlement conference. (am) Mailed notice. (Entered: 07/02/2010)
34 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods by Carol Coplan Babbitt (Babbitt, Carol) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
35 MOTION by Plaintiffs Charles Woods, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Marshun Hill, Jeffery Burks, Leonard Gregory, Cedric Muse, Michael Woods, Charles Brown, Mack Leonard, James Demoss, Clark Faulkner, Antonio Colon, Kenneth George, Jamison Dixon to intervene Interveneing plaintiff motion to intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Intervening Complaint)(Babbitt, Carol) Modified on 7/9/2010 (kj, ). (Entered: 07/09/2010)
36 NOTICE of Motion by Carol Coplan Babbitt for presentment of motion to intervene, 35 before Honorable James F. Holderman on 7/15/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Babbitt, Carol) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
37 Additional Appearance by Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods (Schmidt, Randall) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
38 ATTORNEY Appearance for Movants Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods by Catherine A. Caporusso (Caporusso, Catherine) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
39 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Motion hearing held on 7/15/2010. On Charles Woods, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Marshun Hill, Jeffery Burks, Leonard Gregory, Cedric Muse, Michael Woods, Charles Brown, Mack Leonard, James Demoss, Clark Faulkner, Antonio Colon, Kenneth George, Jamison Dixon's motion to intervene to intervene as plaintiffs 35 , responses due by 8/2/2010; reply due by 8/16/2010. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
40 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. The EEOC's motion to compel 30 is granted. The defendants are compelled to turn over a list of all African−American employees, with their last known addresses and phone numbers, employed at their Chicago Ridge, Illinois facility

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 11 of 24

07/21/2010 07/22/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010 08/04/2010
08/16/2010 08/19/2010 10/05/2010
10/06/2010
10/29/2010 11/04/2010
11/22/2010 11/22/2010

from January 1, 2004 until the facility closed. Status hearing set for August 19, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. (For further details see separate order). Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
41 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 7/21/10. (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
42 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Gregory M. Gochanour (Gochanour, Gregory) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
43 MOTION by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for extension of time To Respond To Motion For Leave To Intervene As Plaintiffs (unopposed) (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
44 NOTICE of Motion by Margo Wolf O'Donnell for presentment of extension of time 43 before Honorable James F. Holderman on 8/12/2010 at 09:00 AM. (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
45 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc.'s unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to motion for leave to intervene as plaintiffs 43 is granted. On the movants' motion to intervene as plaintiffs 35 , responses will be due by 8/12/2010; replies due by 8/26/2010. The Court to rule electronically. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
46 Notice of Non−Objection to Motion for Leave to Intervene as Plaintiffs by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. (Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
47 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. EEOC has served discovery. EEOC has received employee lists. Status hearing set for 11/22/10 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
48 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman:There being no objections, Charles Woods, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Marshun Hill, Jeffery Burks, Leonard Gregory, Cedric Muse, Michael Woods, Charles Brown, Mack Leonard, James Demoss, Clark Faulkner, Antonio Colon, Kenneth George and Jamison Dixons motion for leave to intervene as plaintiffs 35 is granted. Defendants are given until 10/29/2010 to file their responsive pleading to the complaint in intervention. Status hearing is set for 11/4/2010 at 9:00 A.M. Mailed notice (ef, ) Modified on 10/6/2010 (ef, ). (Entered: 10/06/2010)
49 INTERVENOR complaint filed by Charles Woods, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Marshun Hill, Jeffery Burks, Leonard Gregory, Cedric Muse, Michael Woods, Charles Brown, Mack Leonard, James Demoss, Clark Faulkner, Antonio Colon, Kenneth George, Jamison Dixon against YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc.(Schmidt, Randall) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
50 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc.(Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
51 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Status hearing held on 11/4/2010. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 11/30/2011. Expert Discovery ordered closed by 4/2/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 5/15/2012; responses due by 6/19/2012. Replies due by 7/17/2012. Final Pretrial Order due by 9/14/2012. Motions in limine with supporting memoranda due by 9/14/2012; responses due by 9/21/2012. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/27/2012 at 4:00 PM. Jury Trial set for 10/15/2012 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (am) Modified on 11/22/2010 (am, ). (Entered: 11/05/2010)
52 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Enter order correcting minute entry dated 11/4/2010 to read: Pretrial Conference set for 9/27/2012 at 4:00 PM. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
53 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. The Court was informed of the progress of discovery including production of documents set to begin 12/13/10. Status hearing set for 1/11/11 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 12 of 24

12/22/2010 12/22/2010 01/10/2011 01/20/2011
02/28/2011 02/28/2011 03/01/2011 03/08/2011
03/18/2011 04/20/2011
04/20/2011 04/20/2011 04/21/2011 04/21/2011 04/25/2011 04/26/2011

54 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Enter Agreed Protective Order. (For further details see separate order). Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
55 AGREED PROTECTIVE Order. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 12/22/10: (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
56 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Pursuant to a request by the parties, status hearing set for 1/11/2011 at 9:30 a.m is stricken and reset to 1/20/2011 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
57 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Parties informed the Court of the phases and progress of discovery. The Court inquired regarding settlement, however the issue regarding coverage has not yet been made clear. Status hearing set for 3/22/11 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
58 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Defendants to Produce Documents Related to Lost or Damaged Freight Investigations and Workers Compensation Claims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
59 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion to compel 58 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 3/3/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
60 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Pursuant to a joint request by the parties, hearing on EEOC's motion to compel 58 set for 3/3/11 at 9:30 a.m is stricken. Motion hearing set for 3/8/11 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
61 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearing held. Status hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to compel 58 is denied as to the discovery relating to lost or damaged freight. The motion is granted as to the discovery sought relating to the worker's compensation injuries. The Court was informed of the progress of discovery. Status hearing set for 3/22/11 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Status hearing set for 4/25/11 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
62 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Bradley S. Fiorito (Fiorito, Bradley) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
63 MOTION by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. to compel Plaintiff To Produce Documents and Information Relating To Complaints Against Employers Other Than Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/20/2011)
64 NOTICE of Motion by Margo Wolf O'Donnell for presentment of motion to compel, 63 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 4/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/20/2011)
65 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing set for 4/25/11 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Status hearing set for 4/26/11 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/20/2011)
66 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Defendants to Produce Facts Learned From Persons With Whom Defendants Have Communicated Regarding this Lawsuit (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−M)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
67 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion to compel 66 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 4/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
68 STATUS Report as of April 25, 2011 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
69 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Defendants to complete production of responses to EEOC's first set of interrogatories − Interrogatory No. 2 − on or before 5/31/11. Per defendants' representation in court,

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 13 of 24

05/03/2011 05/05/2011 05/05/2011 05/05/2011 05/10/2011 05/10/2011 05/11/2011
06/14/2011 06/14/2011 06/14/2011 06/15/2011

responses to EEOC's first request for production of documents will be completed by today. As noted in EEOC's status report, defendants also expect to respond to EEOC's second set of interrogatories, and EEOC's second request for production of documents, by 5/2/11. As discussed in open court, EEOC to respond and produce documents due to defendants by 6/30/11. Status hearing set for 5/11/11 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant's motion to compel 63 is denied. Plaintiff's motion to compel 66 is entered and continued. Response to be filed on or before 5/3/11. Motion hearing 66 set for 5/11/11 at 9:30 a.m. In light of the additional discovery disputes addressed in Court, the parties are given leave to file a motion to be noticed for 5/11/11, if they deem it necessary, though it is not a set motion day. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
70 RESPONSE by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. to MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Defendants to Produce Facts Learned From Persons With Whom Defendants Have Communicated Regarding this Lawsuit 66 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
71 RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionin Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Defendants to Produce Facts Learned From Persons With Whom Defendants Have Communicated Regarding this Lawsuit 66 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
72 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Defendants to Identify Persons with Knowledge and to Describe that Knowledge (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − G, # 2 Exhibit H)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
73 NOTICE of Motion by Ethan M.M. Cohen for presentment of motion to compel 72 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/11/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
74 RESPONSE by Yellow Transportation, Inc. to MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Defendants to Identify Persons with Knowledge and to Describe that Knowledge 72 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
75 STATUS Report by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
76 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. EEOC's motion to compel 66 regarding interrogatory #12 is granted in part and denied in part. EEOC's motion to compel 72 regarding identity of persons with knowledge, interrogatory #3 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant does not have to divulge to EEOC the identity of every individual interviewed, but defendant must identify people with knowledge and summarize that knowledge succinctly, enough to provide EEOC with information necessary to allow it to determine whether to depose those particular individuals. With respect to on−going discovery production, as each party goes through summaries, those should be turned over to the other side on a rolling basis. Defendant has to 6/10/11 to produce the summaries to EEOC, as outlined in open court. Status hearing set for 6/16/11 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
77 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for order to show cause (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
78 EXHIBITS In Support of Motion for Order to Show Cause(Mrizek, Richard) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office). Modified on 6/15/2011 (et, ). (Entered: 06/14/2011)
79 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
80 RESPONSE by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. to MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for order to show cause 77 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 14 of 24

06/15/2011 06/16/2011
06/30/2011
06/30/2011 06/30/2011 07/08/2011 07/15/2011 07/18/2011
07/19/2011 07/20/2011

5)(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
81 STATUS Report as of June 15, 2011 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
82 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Plaintiff's motion for order to show cause 77 is taken under advisement. Defendants' counsel is cautioned to not file written responses to motions without leave of court. The Court will, therefore, strike the defendants' response 80 brief. Defendants are given leave to file a new response brief that more fully addresses the concerns addressed in open court. Defendants given leave to do so on or before 6/30/11. Plaintiff to file a reply on or before 7/8/11. Ruling set for 7/25/11 at 9:30 a.m. Status hearing set for 7/25/11 at 9:30 a.m. Defendants are instructed to verify that, indeed, the interrogatory responses that defendants have indicated in court as complete, are complete. Defendants are to update the employment status of certain individuals, supplementing previous responses, per the requirements under the Federal Rules. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
83 RESPONSE by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. to MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for order to show cause 77 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Defendants' Third Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Letter dated October 20, 2010, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Letter dated November 3, 2010, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Letter dated February 2, 2011, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Email dated March 3, 2011, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Email dated April 28, 2011, # 9 Exhibit 9 − Hearing Transcript dated May 11, 2011, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Minute Order dated May 11, 2011, # 11 Exhibit 11 − Hearing Transcript dated June 16, 2011, # 12 Exhibit 12 − Minute Order dated June 16, 2011, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Composite, # 14 Exhibit 14 − E−mail dated June 27, 2011)(Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
84 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for extension of time to answer interrogatories (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
85 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of extension of time 84 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 7/25/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
86 REPLY by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for order to show cause 77 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
87 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0752−6191237. (Cummins, Tiffany) (Entered: 07/15/2011)
88 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: On the Court's own motion, ruling on plaintiff's motion for order to show cause 77 set for 7/25/11 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken and reset to 7/26/11 at 9:30 a.m. Hearing on plaintiff's motion for extension of time to answer interrogatories 84 set for 7/25/11 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken and reset to 7/26/11 at 9:30 a.m. Status hearing set for 7/25/11 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken and reset to 7/26/11 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
89 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion by Tiffany L. Cummins for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of defendants Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc. 87 is granted; Attorney Tiffany Lynn Cummins for YRC, Inc. added. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
90 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to answer interrogatories 84 is granted. EEOC is given until 7/29/11 to complete its discovery responses on behalf of its claimants. Parties need not appear on 7/26/11 at 9:30 a.m. for presentment of said motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/20/2011)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 15 of 24

07/21/2011 08/02/2011 08/30/2011 08/31/2011 08/31/2011 09/12/2011 09/12/2011 09/15/2011
11/02/2011 01/17/2012 01/18/2012
02/17/2012

91 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Ruling on plaintiff's motion for order to show cause 77 set for 7/26/11 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken and reset to 8/3/11 at 9:30 a.m. Status hearing set for 7/26/11 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken and reset to 8/3/11 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
92 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Plaintiff's motion for order to show cause 77 is denied with one limited exception. Status hearing set for 8/3/11 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Status hearing on the progress of discovery is set for 8/31/11 at 9:30 a.m. (For further details, see minute order). Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
93 STATUS Report Jointly Filed by Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods, YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
94 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. by Erin Bolan Hines (Hines, Erin) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
95 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 8/31/2011. The parties are directed to notice any motions for extension of discovery deadline before Judge Holderman. Status hearing continued to 11/2/2011 at 9:30 a.m. As that date approaches, if the parties believe that the status hearing is unnecessary, the parties should notify the Court. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
96 MOTION by Movants Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for extension of time to complete discovery (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
97 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion for extension of time to complete discovery, 96 before Honorable James F. Holderman on 9/15/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
98 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Parties' joint motion to extend deadline for fact discovery 96 is granted. Fact Discovery ordered closed 5/30/2012. Expert Discovery ordered closed by 8/30/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 10/15/2012; responses due by 11/13/2012. Replies due by 12/11/2012. Pretrial Order due by 2/13/2013. Motions in limine with supporting memoranda due by 2/13/2013; responses due by 2/20/2013. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/6/2013 at 4:00 PM. Jury Trial set for 3/18/2013 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
99 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. The parties informed the Court that settlement negotiations are ongoing but that the uncertainty of insurance coverage is impeding those negotiations. Parties to exchange lists of deponents by 11/18/11. Status hearing set for 1/18/12 at 9:30 a.m. for a discussion regarding remaining discovery. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
100 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−6741732. (Seegers, James) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
101 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. The Court was informed of the progress of discovery. The Court inquired regarding settlement. The parties have had some settlement discussions, but they have been unsuccessful. Parties have agreed to hold off on discovery regarding punitive damages until closer to trial as it may not be an issue after arbitration. The Parties are encouraged to promptly bring any discovery disputes to the Court's attention. Status hearing set for 3/5/12 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
102 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel production of physical evidence (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 16 of 24

02/17/2012 02/18/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012 02/22/2012 02/22/2012 02/23/2012 02/23/2012 02/23/2012
02/28/2012
02/28/2012 02/28/2012 02/28/2012 02/28/2012

Exhibit D, # 4 Exhibit E)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
103 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion to compel 102 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 2/23/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
104 Additional Exhbits in Support of Motion to Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Declaration)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 02/18/2012)
105 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Defendants to Produce Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Witnesses (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
106 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion to compel 105 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 2/23/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
107 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Grayson Sang Walker (Walker, Grayson) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
108 STATUS Report by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
109 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−6868453. (Mersol, Gregory) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
110 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−6868648. (Chairez, Joseph) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
111 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to compel physical evidence log 102 is granted in so far as defendant is required to − with respect to the box of evidence at issue− track and verify the chain of custody of those items on or before 3/1/12. In addition, any photographs are required to be separately listed in an evidence log on or before 3/8/12. Plaintiff's motion to compel 30(b)(6) depositions 105 is terminated as moot, due to the agreement between the parties, with the proviso that the parties are to provide 7 days notice of any deposition to be scheduled. Status hearing set for 3/5/12 at 9:30 a.m. to stand. Though the next status is not a motion day, the parties are given leave to file motions and notice them for dates the Court schedules statuses. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
112 MOTION by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for protective order as to Plaintiff's Three Overbroad and Duplicative Rule 30(b)(6) Notices (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Rule 30(b)(6) Notice regarding recordkeeping, # 2 Exhibit B − Rule 30(b)(6) Notice regarding complaints and investigations of racial discrimination, # 3 Exhibit C − Rule 30(b)(6) Notice regarding graffiti and complaint logs, # 4 Exhibit D − Rule 30(b)(6) Notice regarding complaint investigation, policies, and training)(Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
113 NOTICE of Motion by Kevin W. Shaughnessy for presentment of motion for protective order,, 112 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 3/5/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
114 MOTION by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for protective order as to Deposition of William Dunn (Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
115 MOTION by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for protective order as to Deposition of William Dunn (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Weber depo transcript, # 2 Exhibit B − Notices)(Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
116 MEMORANDUM by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. in support of motion for protective order 114 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 02/28/2012)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 17 of 24

02/28/2012 02/29/2012 03/01/2012 03/02/2012 03/04/2012 03/05/2012
03/05/2012 03/09/2012 03/12/2012 03/19/2012
03/26/2012 03/26/2012 03/26/2012

117 NOTICE of Motion by Kevin W. Shaughnessy for presentment of motion for protective order 114 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 3/5/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Shaughnessy, Kevin) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
118 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. by Jeffrey Taylor Williams (Williams, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
119 NOTICE by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Verified Chain of Custody Declaration of Kevin W. Shaughnessy, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Verified Chain of Custody Declaration of Tracey L. Ellerson)(Ellerson, Tracey) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
120 STATUS Report by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. (Ellerson, Tracey) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
121 STATUS Report by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 03/04/2012)
122 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Motion hearing held. Defendants' motion regarding 30(b)(6) notices 112 is granted in part and denied in part as outlined in open court. The Court expects defendants to produce witnesses appropriate to the notices within the best of their ability. With regard to the 30(b)(6) notice in Exhibit B, defendant is not required to produce more than one witness, but EEOC is allowed to ask questions about prior complaints of racial harassment. With regard to the 30(b)(6) notice in Exhibit C, the Court notes that if the same witness responds to both the notice in Exhibit B and the notice in Exhibit C, the time of that deposition will be limited to 7 hours on good cause shown. If, after that deposition, the EEOC seeks more time with the witness, it may bring a motion. Defendants' motion for protective order as to deposition of William Dunn 115 is entered and continued. Defendants to produce privilege log to plaintiff on or before 3/9/12. Response 115 to be filed on or before 3/16/12. Reply to be filed on or before 3/23/12. Defendants' motion for protective order 114 is a duplicate of motion 115 and is termed as moot. Status hearing set for 3/12/12 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
123 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to notice of motion 113 Exhibits Presented in Open Court (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
124 STATUS Report Updated As Of March 9, 2012 by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. (Hines, Erin) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
125 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. A lengthy discussion was had regarding the production of documents. The parties to exchange their respective lists of document custodians on or before 3/15/12. Status hearing set for 3/19/12 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
126 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Settlement discussions held off the record. Defendant to provide EEOC with a list of the corporate custodians it has asked to preserve documents on or before 3/23/12. There remains an issue with respect to Defendant's production of certain emails, which the Defendant company is currently working to resolve. That has, however, delayed the taking of the 30(b)(6) deposition relating to the handling of complaints at the Chicago Ridge facility. The parties are working to finalize a schedule for that deposition. Plaintiff indicates that they expect to file discovery motions within a short date, therefore, the Court will not set a status hearing at this time. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
127 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel "STDWORK" calculation, time studies, pricing information, and cost analysis (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Walker, Grayson) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
128 NOTICE of Motion by Grayson Sang Walker for presentment of motion to compel 127 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 3/29/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Walker, Grayson) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
129 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Documents Sought by Request No 71 Regarding Casual Employee Call−In Process

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 18 of 24

03/26/2012 03/26/2012 03/26/2012 03/29/2012
03/30/2012 04/05/2012 04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/09/2012

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E)(Fiorito, Bradley) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
130 NOTICE of Motion by Bradley S. Fiorito for presentment of motion to compel 129 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 3/29/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Fiorito, Bradley) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
131 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
132 NOTICE of Motion by Ethan M.M. Cohen for presentment of motion to compel 131 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 3/29/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
133 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearings held. Plaintiff's motion to compel "STD Work" Calculation 127 is granted. Defendant to provide standard work calculation formula to plaintiffs. Regarding the time studies, the Court finds that they are relevant if they related to time components for specific tasks. Simply because they may cover nationwide activity, portions may not be relevant, but this does not make the entirety of the study irrelevant. Therefore, to the extent there are studies that address time components for specific tasks, those are to be produced on or before 4/10/12. The Court also overrules defendant's objection to document requests Nos. 36−40 seeking information about defendant's cost analysis and pricing policies. This information is to be produced to plaintiffs on or before 4/10/12. Plaintiff's motion to compel Request No. 71 (casual employee call−in) 129 − Period of 2004−2009 is agreed by defendant to be produced. The motion is denied without prejudice in that the Court will re−assess the production of documents in the 2000−2004 time period after EEOC has first had time to review the 2004−2009 data. Plaintiff's motion to compel (Emails from Katy Weber and other employees) 131 is granted in that defendant to provide responsive documents related to the missing TSP documents from Katy Weber, on or before 4/5/12. The motion is entered and continued as to the remainder of the motion, allowing time for defendant to investigate and report back to Court regarding status of electronic document production. Status hearing set for 4/11/12 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
134 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Jeanne B. Szromba (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
135 STATUS Report Concerning the Production of Emails and Other Documents from Katy Weber by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. (Ellerson, Tracey) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
136 STATUS Report by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
137 MOTION by Defendants Yellow Transportation, Inc., YRC, Inc. for partial summary judgment (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
138 MEMORANDUM by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. in support of motion for partial summary judgment 137 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12)(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
139 RULE 56 1(a) Statement by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. regarding motion for partial summary judgment 137 (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
140 NOTICE of Motion by Margo Wolf O'Donnell for presentment of motion for partial summary judgment 137 before Honorable James F. Holderman on 4/19/2012 at 09:00 AM. (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
141 EXHIBIT by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. regarding Rule 56 statement 139 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12)(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 19 of 24

04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/09/2012 04/10/2012 04/11/2012
04/12/2012
04/13/2012 04/16/2012 04/16/2012 04/16/2012 04/18/2012 04/19/2012

142 MOTION by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for judgment on the pleadings (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
143 MOTION by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for judgment on the pleadings (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
144 MEMORANDUM by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. in support of motion for judgment on the pleadings 143 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
145 NOTICE of Motion by Margo Wolf O'Donnell for presentment of motion for judgment on the pleadings 143 before Honorable James F. Holderman on 4/19/2012 at 09:00 AM. (O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
146 OBJECTIONS by YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. to order on motion to compel,,, motion hearing, set/reset hearings,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 133 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(O'Donnell, Margo) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
147 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Defendant's oral motion to request an in camera discussion regarding setting a possible settlement conference is granted. Settlement discussions held with defendant's counsel in chambers. Response to defendant's objections to Minute Order of 3/29/12 146 to be filed on or before 4/18/12. As outlined in open court, EEOC to provide to defendant a list of the individual custodians known to have missing records on or before 4/13/12. In response, defendant to provide an accounting of their litigation hold process as to those individuals. After this exchange, the e−discovery liaisons from each party are ordered to meet and confer regarding the document preservation system. Defendant to provide a verification regarding the status of photographs, outlining those that have been properly preserved and those that were not. Discovery conference set for 4/25/12 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
148 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Settlement conference set for 4/23/12 at 1:00 p.m. Parties are to review and to comply with this Court's Standing Order Setting Settlement Conference which is available through the Court's webpage. Plaintiff's counsel to submit a written itemization of damages and settlement demand to defendants' counsel with a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate on or before 4/13/12. A courtesy copy of this submission must be sent to the Court at the same time. Defendants' counsel shall submit a written offer to plaintiff's counsel and the Court with a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate on or before 4/18/12. The settlement conference date may only be changed by the granting of a motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
149 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Defendants' motion for protective order as to deposition of William Dunn 115 is denied without prejudice. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
150 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to strike MOTION by Defendants Yellow Transportation, Inc., YRC, Inc. for partial summary judgment 137 , MOTION by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for judgment on the pleadings 142 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
151 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
152 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement discussions held in chambers with plaintiff's counsel. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
153 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to objections, 146 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Walker, Grayson) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
154 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel the Production of a Properly Prepared Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Witness on Yellow's Anti−Discrimination Policies and Training at Chicago Ridge (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − C, # 2 Exhibit D)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 20 of 24

04/19/2012 04/19/2012
04/20/2012
04/20/2012 04/20/2012 04/20/2012 04/23/2012 04/23/2012 04/24/2012 04/25/2012
04/25/2012
05/01/2012 05/02/2012 05/15/2012

155 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion to compel, 154 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 4/25/2012 at 10:30 AM. (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 04/19/2012)
161 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman:Motion hearing held on 4/19/2012. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment 137 142 is entered and continued for 6/21/2012 at 9:00 AM. Plaintiff's motion to strike 150 is denied without prejudice. On defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings 143 , responses due by 5/10/2012; replies due by 5/24/2012. Status hearing set for 6/21/2012 at 9:00 AM. Both sides are to proceed with discovery on the issue of conciliation; said discovery to close 6/19/2012. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
156 MOTION by Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. to compel the EEOC's Identification and Production of Evidence (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpts from deposition of J.W. Rogers dated 2/8/12, # 2 Exhibit B − E−mail from Ethan Cohen dated 3/1/12, # 3 Exhibit C − Excerpts from deposition of Michael Anderson dated 2/9/12, # 4 Exhibit D − E−mail from Grayson Walker dated 4/17/12)(Cummins, Tiffany) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
157 NOTICE of Motion by Tiffany Lynn Cummins for presentment of motion to compel, 156 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 4/25/2012 at 10:30 AM. (Cummins, Tiffany) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
158 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel production of corporate knowledge of nooses and graffiti (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
159 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
160 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Pursuant to a request by the parties, the time for the settlement conference on 4/23/12 set for 1:00 p.m. is reset to 1:30 p.m. Telephoned notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
162 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held on 4/23/12. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
163 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Settlement Conference set for 5/1/12 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
164 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: In light of the upcoming settlement conference scheduled on May 1, 2012 163 , the court vacates the briefing schedule for defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings 143 that was set on April 19, 2012 161 . The motion for judgment on the pleadings is entered and continued for May 15, 2012, at 9 am. The parties are strongly encouraged to consider settlement. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
165 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Discovery conference set for 4/25/12 at 10:30 a.m. is stricken. The portion of plaintiff's motion to compel 131 that remains pending, Plaintiff's motion to compel production 154 , Defendants' motion to compel the EEOC's identification and production of evidence 156 and Plaintiff's motion to compel production of corporate knowledge of nooses and graffiti 158 are entered and continued until completion of the scheduled settlement conference. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
166 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held on 5/1/12. Settlement Conference set for 5/2/12 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
167 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Settlement conference held. Status hearing set for 5/17/12 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
169 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Motion hearing held on 5/15/2012. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings 142 143 is entered and continued for 6/7/2012 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 05/18/2012)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 21 of 24

05/17/2012
05/23/2012 05/25/2012

168 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Parties appeared for status hearing. Settlement discussions held off the record. Status hearing stricken. Parties to contact the Court on or before 5/21/12 to confirm the proposed date for a continued settlement conference. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)
170 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Settlement Conference set for 6/6/12 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
171 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on March 29, 2012, before the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Court Reporter Contact Information: Laura LaCien, 312−408−5032, laura_lacien@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

06/06/2012 06/06/2012 06/11/2012 06/11/2012
06/12/2012 06/12/2012
06/20/2012 06/20/2012 06/21/2012

Redaction Request due 6/15/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/25/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/23/2012. (Lacien, Laura) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
172 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Hearing on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings 142 143 is reset for 6/12/2012 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
173 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Settlement conference held. Status hearing set for 6/11/12 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant's counsel given leave to appear by telephone. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
174 JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge by Intervening Plaintiffs (Babbitt, Carol) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office). Modified on 6/12/2012 (et, ). (Entered: 06/11/2012)
175 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Parties informed the Court they have reached a settlement and will need additional time to finalize the settlement documents. The Court was informed of the proposed schedule for final approval of settlement and fairness hearing. Parties to consent. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
176 JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge by EEOC (Cohen, Ethan) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office). Modified on 6/13/2012 (et, ). (Entered: 06/12/2012)
177 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Motion hearing held on 6/12/2012. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings 142 143 and defendants' motion for partial summary judgment 137 are continued for 6/28/2012 at 9:00 AM. Parties inform the Court that they will consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Cox. Once all parties have consented and submitted the proper forms, the case will be referred to the Executive Committee for reassignment. Mailed notice (am) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
178 JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge by Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc. (Ellerson, Tracey) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office). Modified on 6/21/2012 (et, ). (Entered: 06/20/2012)
179 JOINT CONSENT (AMENDED) to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge by Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc. (Ellerson, Tracey) Docket text modified by the Clerk's Office on 6/20/2012 (psm, ). Modified on 6/21/2012 (et, ). (Entered: 06/20/2012)
180 ORDER REASSIGNING Case to the Honorable Susan E. Cox pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(B) for all further proceedings parties having consented to the reassignment. Signed by Honorable James F. Holderman on 06/21/2012. (et, ) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 22 of 24

06/26/2012
06/26/2012 06/27/2012
06/28/2012 07/09/2012 07/09/2012 07/11/2012
09/10/2012 09/10/2012
09/12/2012 09/25/2012 09/25/2012 10/02/2012 10/21/2012

181 MOTION by Movants Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for order for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Consent Decree)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
182 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion for order, 181 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/28/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
183 NOTICE by All Parties re MOTION by Movants Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods, Plai 181 to Correct Exhibit 1 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Corrected Proposed Consent Decree)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
184 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Joint motion for preliminary approval of proposed consent decree 181 is granted. Parties need not appear on 6/28/12 at 9:30 a.m for presentment of said motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
185 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Enter Order Setting Dates Required by Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree. Fairness hearing set for 9/12/12 at 11:00 a.m. (For further detail see separate order). Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
186 ORDER Setting Dates Required by Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 7/9/12: (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
187 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion by James W. Seegers for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of defendants Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc. 100 is granted. Motion by Gregory V. Mersol for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc. 109 is granted.Motion by Joseph L. Chairez for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc. 110 is granted. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
188 PETITION notice of filing, 183 Class Counsel's Unopposed Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Schmidt, Randall) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
189 NOTICE by Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods re petition 188 Notice of Filing of Class Counsel's Unopposed Petiton for Attorneys Fees and Costs (Schmidt, Randall) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
190 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Fairness hearing held. Class Counsel's Unopposed Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 188 is granted and Class Counsel is awarded $1,100,000.00 as their reasonable fees and costs. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
191 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Enter Consent Decree. (For further details see separate order). Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
192 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 9/25/12: (vkd, ) (et, ). (Main Document 192 replaced on 10/2/2012) (et, ). (Entered: 09/25/2012)
193 NOTICE of Correction regarding 192 . (et, ) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
194 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 3−5−12 before the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren, https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/Transcript−Order−Form.aspx.

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 23 of 24

10/21/2012
10/21/2012
12/18/2012 12/18/2012 12/19/2012 01/25/2013 01/25/2013

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 11/13/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/21/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/21/2013. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 10/21/2012)
195 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 3−12−12 before the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren, https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/Transcript−Order−Form.aspx.
IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 11/13/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/21/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/21/2013. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 10/21/2012)
196 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 3−19−12 before the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren, https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/Transcript−Order−Form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 11/13/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/21/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/21/2013. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 10/21/2012)
197 MOTION by Movants Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. for extension of time to file Proposed Distribution of Settlement Funds (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
198 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion for extension of time to file, 197 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 12/20/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
199 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Joint Motion for Setting Date for Submission of Proposed Distribution of Settlement Fund Under the consent Decree 197 is granted. Plaintiff to file their motion for approval of the process and the distribution on or before 1/17/13. Parties need not appear on 12/20/12 at 9:30 a.m. for presentment of motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
200 MOTION by Movants Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for disbursement of funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
201 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion for disbursement of funds, 200 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 2/7/2013 at 09:30

Case: 1:09-cv-07693 As of: 06/06/2013 01:17 PM CDT 24 of 24

02/07/2013
02/07/2013 02/20/2013 02/20/2013 02/22/2013 04/04/2013
04/04/2013 04/08/2013

AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
202 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Enter Order Approving of Allocation of Settlement Funds. Upon consideration the EEOC and Section 1981 Class Counsel Joint Motion for Approval of Allocation of Settlement Funds filed on January 25, 2013, it is hereby ordered that the Joint Motion 200 is granted and that the Court 1) approves the Allocation of the Settlement Funds as set forth in Exhibit A to the Joint Motion, 2) approves the proposed Incentive Payments set forth in Exhibit B to the Joint Motion, and 3) approves the proposed Notification of Award and Release attached as Exhibit C to the Joint Motion. Parties need not appear on 2/7/13 at 9:30 a.m. for presentment of motion. (For further detail see separate order). Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
203 ORDER Approving of Allocation of Settlement Funds. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 2/7/13: (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
204 MOTION by counsel for Defendants YRC, Inc., Yellow Transportation, Inc. to withdraw as attorney (Nybo, Christopher) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
205 NOTICE of Motion by Christopher L Nybo for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 204 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 2/26/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Nybo, Christopher) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
206 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion by attorney Christopher L. Nybo to withdraw appearance as counsel for defendant Yellow Transportation, Inc. 204 is granted. Parties need not appear on 2/26/13 at 9:30 a.m. for presentment of said motion. Attorney Christopher L. Nybo terminated. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
207 MOTION by Movants Charles Brown, Jeffery Burks, Antonio Colon, James Demoss, Jamison Dixon, Clark Faulkner, Kenneth George, Leonard Gregory, Marshun Hill, Mack Leonard, Cedric Muse, Laroy Washington, Darrell Williams, Charles Woods, Michael Woods, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for disbursement of funds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
208 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion for disbursement of funds, 207 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 4/9/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
209 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Plaintiffs' joint motion for approval of final distribution of settlement funds 207 is granted. The modification of awards listed on Exhibit A are approved. The final distribution list attached as Exhibit B is approved. The notice of payment attached as Exhibit C is approved.Parties need not appear on 4/9/13 at 9:30 a.m. for presentment of motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/08/2013)