2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 1 Page 1 of 6

E-FILED
Wednesday, 29 September, 2004 12:51:11 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

)

)

______________D_e_f_en_d_a_n_t.___________))

Fl l CIVIL ACTION NO.

CL/-.J.J C· (J

° ,"')Et') .2J 2..00·'I

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., and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to David Marcotte and a class of similarly situated employees who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that David Marcotte, a male, and a class ofsimilarly situated employees were sexually harassed by a co-worker. Defendant Federal Express Corporation ("Defendant") also discriminated against David Marcotte by retaliating against him for complaining about the harassment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)( 1) and (3) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 198la ("Title VII"). 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 1 Page 2 of 6
within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofTitle VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t)( 1) and(3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(l) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Federal Express Corporation has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Kankakee and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Federal Express Corporation 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 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, David Marcotte filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least December 1998, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Kankakee, Illinois, in continuing violation ofSections 703(a)( 1) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a)(l) and 2000e-3(a). These unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) sexually harassing David Marcotte and a class of similarly situated employees; and
2

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 1 Page 3 of 6
(b) detrimentally affecting the terms and conditions ofMarcotte's employment through retaliatory harassment and by reducing his hours because he complained of sexual harassment.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive David Marcotte of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of his sex and because he complained of sexual harassment.
9. The effect ofthe practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive a class ofsimilarly situated employees ofequal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their sex.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of David Marcotte and a class of similarly situated employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment and retaliating against employees who exercise their rights under Title VII. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees regardless of their sex and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
3

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 1 Page 4 of 6
C. Order Defendant to make whole David Marcotte by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant to make whole David Marcotte and a class of similarly situated employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to make whole David Marcotte and a class of similarly situated employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay David Marcotte and a class of similarly situated employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
4

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 1 Page 5 of 6
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, Eric Dreiband General Counsel James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
~~1~ JI;e B. Szrom~~
Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7546
5

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 1 Page 6 of 6

'.JS 44 (Rev. 3/99)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is reqUired for the use of
the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil dockcl sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

L (a) PLAINTIFFS US Equal Employment Opportunity Commision

DEFENDANTS Federal Express Corporation

(b) County of Residence ofFirst Listed (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Jeanne B. Szromba

(312) 3S3-7S46

Equal Employment Opportunity Commision

SOO West Madison, Suite 2800, Chicago, Dlinois 60661

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in o..e Box Only)

County of Residence of First Listed ..o:K.:::an=k=ak.,e:::.e_ _ _ _ __ (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USB TilE LOCATION OF TilE LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)

x I U.S. Government Plaintiff

0 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

0 2 U.S. Government Defendant

0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Onlv)

CONTRACT

TORTS

Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 lncmporated and Principal

D S DS

of Business ln Another State

Citizen or Subject ofa D 3 D 3 Foreign Nation Foreirn Conntrv

D 6 06

FORFEITUIU:IPENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

OTHJ:R STATUTES

D 110 Insuraru:e

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY D 610 AgriCII!tlR

D 422 Appeal28 USC ISH 0 400 State Reapportioomcnt

D 120 Marine D 130 Milia: Act D 140 Negotiable lnstnuneot

D 310 Ailpiane
D 31 s Ailplane Product
Liability

D 362 Personal InjmyMed. Malpmctice
D 36S Penonal J'liuzy-

D 620 Otber Food & Drng

D 62S DrngRclated Seizure D 423 Wilhdrawal

ofProperty 21 USC 881

28 usc IS7

0 410 Anlitrust 0 430 Banb and Banking
0 4SO Commen:cllCC Raleaietc.

D ISO~ofOverpayment D 320Assault,Libel&

& Bllforcement ofJudgment

Slander

Product Liability D 630 Liquor Laws D 368 Asbestos Penonal D 640 R.R. & Truck

1 - - - - - - - - i 0 460 Deportation PROPERTY RIGHTS 0 470 Rlleketcer InflucDccd and

D lSI Medicare Act

D 330 Federal Employers'

D IS2 ~of Defaulted

Liability

Studeot Loans

D 340 Marine

(Bxcl. Veterans)

D 34S Marine Product

D lS3 ~ofOverpayment

Liability

of Veteran's Beoefits

D 3SO Motor Vehicle

Injury Product Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY D 370 Other Fraud D 371 Tndh in Lending

D D
D
1

6SO 660
690
--

Airline Regs. Occupational Safety/Health Otber
------

-

+

D D
D
-

820 Copyrighta 830 Patent 840 Tradmwuk
-------

-

-

i

o
0
D

BIO BSO
87S

Corrupt Orpoizations
Scieetive s.m.c
Securiliea/Commoditieai
llxdumse
CustomerCballeoge

D 380 Other Personal

LABOR

SOCIAL SECURITY

12 USC3410

D 160 Stockholders' Suill

D 3SS Motor Vehicle

Property Damage

D 190 Other CoDIIact

Product Liability

D 38S Property Damage

D 19S CoD11act Product Liability D 360 Other Personal J'liuzy

Product Liability

REAL PROPERTY

CIVIL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

D 710 Fair Labor Standards D 861 HIA (l39Sfi)

D 891 Agricultural Acts D 892 &anomie Stabilizalion Act

D
D

Act

D

720 Labor/Mgml. Relalions D

D

730 Labor/Mgmi.Reporting D

862 Blaclc Lung (923)

D 893 Bnvironmcntal Matters

863 DIWCIDIWW (40S(g)) 864 SSID Till• XVI
86SRSI(40S(g))

O D

8899S 4 lln= orgyA AJlocc:attion Act

D 210 Land Coodemnation

D 441 VoliDg

D 220 Foreclosure

X 442 Bmploymeot

D 230 Reo! Lease & Bjcclmeol D 443 Housing/

D 240 Tom to Land

AccommodatiODS

D 24S Tort Product Liability D 444 Welfimo

D 290 All Other hal Property D 440 Other Civil Rights

D SIOMotionsto Vacate
Scotcru:e
Habeas Corpus: D SJOGcnoml
D SJS Death Penalty D S40 Mandamus & Other
D sso Civil Righta
D SSS Prison Condition

& Disclosme Act
D 740 Railway Labor Act
D 790 Other Labor Litigation
D 791 Bmpl. Ret. Iru:. Security Act

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
D 870 TIWOI (U.S. Plainlilf or Dc&ndant)
D 871 IRS-Third Party
26 usc 7609

D 900Appeal of Fee Dctenninatioo Under Equal A=88 to Juati<e
0 9SO Constitutiona1i of
StateStalnlcs 0 890 Other Statutory Actions

V. ORIGIN

x 1 Origm'al D 2 Removed :from

Proceeding

State Court

(PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

D 3 Remanded from D 4 Reinstated D 5 Transferred from

Appellate Court

Roreopened

a(snpoetchiefry)district

J~ D 6 Multidistrict

D

7 Ap

al to District from

Litigation

JMudaggimsterantte

VL CAUSE OF ACTION

(Cite the U.S. Civil Statute uodorwhich you are filins and write b r i e f - ofcauac.
Do not cito jurisdic:lional statutes unless divmity.)

This is an action uod£r Title vn of the Civil Righta Act ofl964, as 8lllellded, 42 U.S.C. 2000o ct seq., and Title I of tho civil Rights Act ofl991 to cmrcct unlawful cmploymeot practil:es on the basis ofsex

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
vm. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
DATE
JIOR OJIJIICE USE ONLY RBCBlPT II _ _ __

0 CHECK lF TillS lS A CLASS ACfiON DEMANDS
UNDERF.RC.P. 23

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

x Yes D No

(See instructions): JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

SIG~OFATTORNEYOF~RD
~4M!Vt0 ~'l?~

MAG. niDGE _ _ _ _ _ _ __

 
 2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 25 Page 1 of 6

E-FILED
Thursday, 20 October, 2005 10:28:20 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-2209
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Ci vil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§2000e et seq., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employm ent

practices on the basis of sex a nd retaliation and to provide appropr iate relief to David Marcotte

and a class of sim ilarly situated employees w ho were ad versely affected by such practices.

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that David Marcotte, a male, and a

class of similarly situated employees were sexually harassed by a co-worker. Defendant Federal

Express Corporation (“Defendant”) also discrim inated against David Marcotte by retaliating

against him for complaining about the harassment and constructively discharging him.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this C ourt is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is autho rized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as am ended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1 ) and (3) and

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (“Title VII”).

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

1

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 25 Page 2 of 6
committed within the jurisdiction of the United Stat es District Court f or Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is ex pressly authorized to b ring this action by Sectio n 706(f)(1) and(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant tim es, Defendant Fede ral Express Corporation has continuously been a corp oration doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Kankakee and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant tim es, Defendant Fede ral Express Corporation has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affec ting commerce within the m eaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, David Marcotte filed a charge with the Comm ission alleging violati ons of Title VII by De fendant. All condition s precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least December 1998, Defendant has enga ged in unlawful employm ent practices at its facility in Kanka kee, Illinois, in con tinuing violation of Sections 703(a)(1) and 704(a) of T itle VII, 42 U. S.C. §§2000e-2(a)(1) and 2000e-3(a). These unlawful employm ent practices include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) sexually harassing David Marcotte and a class of similarly situated employees;
2

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 25 Page 3 of 6
(b) detrimentally affecting the terms and conditions of Marcotte’s employment through retaliatory harassment and by reducing his hours because he complained of sexual harassment;
(c) terminating Marcotte’s employment because he complained of sexual harassment; and
(d) constructively discharging Marcotte. 8. The effect of the practices com plained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive David Marcotte of equa l employment opportunities and ot herwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of his sex and because he complained of sexual harassment. 9. The effect of the practices com plained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive a class of similarly situated employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their sex. 10. The unlawful em ployment practices com plained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional. 11. The unlawful em ployment practices com plained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of David Marcotte and a class of similarly situated employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a perm anent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in activ e concert or p articipation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment and retaliating against employees who exercise their rights under Title VII. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which
3

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 25 Page 4 of 6
provide equal em ployment opportunities for all employees regardless of their sex and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant to m ake whole Da vid Marcotte by pr oviding appropriate backpay with prejudgm ent interest, in am ounts to be determined at trial, and other affirm ative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant to m ake whole David Ma rcotte and a clas s of similarly situated employees by providing com pensation for past a nd future pecuniary losse s resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to m ake whole David Ma rcotte and a clas s of similarly situated employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, includi ng emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay David Marcot te and a class of similarly situated employees punitive damages for its m alicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Cour t deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
4

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 25 Page 5 of 6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

Respectf

ully submitted,

Deputy

James Lee General Counsel

Gwendolyn Associate

Young Reams General Counsel

EQUAL
1801 Washington,

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION “L” Street, N.W.
D.C. 20507

s/ John Hendrickson John Hendrickson ARDC # 1187589 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff

s/ Diane I. Smason Diane I. Smason ARDC # 6626130 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-7526 Fax: (312) 353-8555
5

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB # 25 Page 6 of 6
E-Mail: diane.smason@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff
s/ Jeanne B. Szromba_________________ Jeanne B. Szromba, Esq. ARDC# 6207846 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-7546 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: jeanne.szromba@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff
s/ Ann M. Henry Ann M. Henry ARDC # 6272394 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-8558 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: ann.henry@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff
6

 
 E-FILED
Tuesday, 05 December, 2006 11:54:53 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

04-2209

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER The plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has filed this complaint against defendant Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”). EEOC alleges that FedEx unlawfully discriminated against employees David Marcotte (“Marcotte”) and Bob Kerouac (“Kerouac”) and a class of similarly situated individuals. Specifically, EEOC alleges that the FedEx employees were sexually harassed and/or retaliated against for lodging complaints of harassment.

FedEx has filed a motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion [#37] is denied.

BACKGROUND

FedEx operates a facility in Kankakee, Illinois. At all relevant times, FedEx employed approximately 35 people at the Kankakee facility.

During most of the relevant time period, Pamela O’Sullivan (“O’Sullivan”) was the highest ranking manager at the Kankakee facility; she reported to a supervisor located at a different FedEx facility. O’Sullivan hired Marcotte in late 1999. Shortly thereafter, Marcotte met Daren McGill (“McGill”). McGill and Marcotte would often work at the conveyor belt at the same time, although for much of that time they were not in close proximity to each other. A significant part of their workday was spent away from the facility and each other, doing package pick-up and/or delivery.

Marcotte alleges that beginning almost immediately after he started with FedEx, he was sexually harassed by McGill. Marcotte asserts he repeatedly complained to his supervisor, O’Sullivan, and when Marcotte finally made a written report, he was retaliated against and then terminated. Kerouac also claims he was sexually harassed by McGill. Although Kerouac reported it to O’Sullivan, he did not make a written complaint. McGill, who was terminated in November 2003, admits only that (1) he had a habit of rubbing and/or touching his male and

1

female coworkers’ shoulders and upper torso, including Marcotte’s; and (2) he once brought in a deck of playing cards depicting pictures of naked men. O’Sullivan denies that Marcotte repeatedly complained to her about McGill’s sexual harassment. She states that in February 2003, she, McGill and Marcotte had a meeting at which they discussed “acceptable conduct.” She states that Marcotte complained about McGill’s “looks or comments” but O’Sullivan didn’t take it to mean that the looks or comments were sexual in nature.
ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment is proper when “a party . . . fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case[.]” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970).
The burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists rests with the movant. Jakubiec v. Cities Serv. Co., 844 F.2d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 1988). Once the movant has done so, the party opposing the motion bears the burden to respond. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322323. The opponent must provide specific facts to show the existence of a genuine issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
I.
On this motion for summary judgment, the court must first determine whether there are any facts to support a claim of a sexually discriminatory hostile work environment. A prima facie case is established by showing (1) the victim was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; (2) the harassment was based on the victim’s sex; (3) the harassment unreasonably interfered with the victim’s work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment that seriously affected his psychological well-being; and (4) there is a basis for employer liability. Moser v. Indiana Dep’t of Corr., 406 F.3d 895, 902 (7th Cir. 2005). Same-sex sexual harassment is cognizable under Title VII. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79 (1998).
As to the first three elements of the prima facie case, McGill’s story contrasts sharply with Marcotte and Kerouac’s description of the events.1 According to Marcotte, the harassment started almost immediately after he was hired. McGill rubbed Marcotte’s shoulders; rubbed, grabbed, and slapped Marcotte’s buttocks; pressed his groin against Marcotte’s buttocks;
1 Other FedEx employees witnessed some of the incidents and corroborate Marcotte’s allegations.
2

reached out and rubbed Marcotte’s leg; and “goosed” Marcotte with a finger or clipboard. In addition to physical contact, McGill talked to Marcotte and tried to engage him in conversations about masturbation. McGill repeatedly told Marcotte to bend over so he could “drill him in the ass and said he wanted to surprise Marcotte with “something big and hard.” McGill admits only that he often touched or rubbed his coworkers’ backs and shoulders; he states he did not engage in any sexually explicit conversation or conduct (other than showing the sexually explicit playing cards to his coworkers).2
In addition, the parties dispute the facts supporting the fourth element of the prima facie case. Marcotte and Kerouac allege that they repeatedly reported McGill’s conduct to O’Sullivan, but their complaints fell on deaf ears. O’Sullivan says the first formal complaint she received from Marcotte was in January 2003.3 In February 2003, she met with Marcotte and McGill to discuss “acceptable conduct.” On March 13, 2003, Marcotte submitted a written sexual harassment complaint to FedEx. He listed numerous incidents of McGill’s harassment and O’Sullivan’s failure to take action. FedEx argues that once Marcotte filed the written report, the company took swift action against McGill and O’Sullivan. FedEx also argues that even if O’Sullivan failed to act on the men’s verbal complaints, FedEx policy allowed the men to take their complaints to members of their management team or FedEx’s Human Resources professionals. That the men could have complained to someone else does not absolve the company of liability when the men followed company policy by complaining to O’Sullivan.4
II.
EEOC alleges that FedEx retaliated against Marcotte for complaining about the sexual harassment. To prove a Title VII retaliation charge under the indirect method, the plaintiff must show he lodged a complaint of discrimination, his job performance was satisfactory, he suffered an adverse employment action, and similarly situated individuals who did not complain were
2 Marcotte, Kerouac and other FedEx employees believe McGill is homosexual; McGill denies it.
3 O’Sullivan knew that upon receiving a complaint, FedEx policy required her to give the complainant a form to complete, and she was to submit the completed form to a Human Resources officer within 48 hours. She did not do so. In fact, when she received Marcotte’s January 2003 complaint, she did not even look up FedEx’s sexual harassment policy.
4 FedEx argues that “a reasonable person, realizing that [his] complaints were ineffective, would . . . seek a remedy elsewhere,” quoting Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Ill., Inc. 163 F.3d 1027, 1038 (7th Cir. 1998). Parkins is factually inapposite. In that case, the plaintiff saw and spoke to the company’s owner every day, yet did not report the harassment directly to him. Parkins, 163 F.3d at 1038. In this case, Marcotte did not have regular contact with O’Sullivan’s supervisors. Also, FedEx employee Calimas Hill told of several events suggesting that O’Sullivan could be vindictive and unprofessional. A jury could conclude that complaining to someone other than O’Sullivan would have been at the complainants’ peril.
3

treated more favorably. Luckie v. Ameritech Corp., 389 F.3d 708, 714 (7th Cir. 2004). The employer may defeat the claim if it can show a legitimate purpose for the action taken, and the employee is unable to rebut that evidence by showing the stated purpose is pretextual. Stone v. City of Indianapolis, 281 F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 2002).
Marcotte claims that FedEx retaliated against him by (1) cutting his hours; (2) allowing McGill to retaliate against him; and (3) eventually terminating him.5 FedEx states it cut Marcotte’s hours because others with more seniority asked to work additional hours. Marcotte claims that the additional hours were given to individuals with less seniority who had not complained of sexual harassment. Marcotte also claims that McGill began to leave trash in Marcotte’s truck, poured water on his seat, and threw packages at him. O’Sullivan did nothing to stop McGill because she considered Marcotte as culpable as McGill, labeling the conduct “pranks.” McGill was eventually terminated after he threw a metal device at Marcotte, hitting him on the head. Finally, Marcotte was terminated. Fed Ex claims that Marcotte violated company policy by driving with his driver’s door open and his seatbelt unfastened. Marcotte claims that others had done the same thing and were not issued a disciplinary warning for doing so.6 These issues must be resolved by a jury.
CONCLUSION
The court concludes, on the basis of the evidence discussed herein, that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment [#37] must be denied. The parties’ voluminous supporting documents contain additional factual disputes, each of which has been reviewed and considered. The facts and arguments not addressed in this order do not change the conclusion that this case must be decided by a trier of fact.
The final pretrial conference is scheduled for January 8, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. by personal appearance. Jury selection and jury trial are scheduled to begin on January 22, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.
Entered this 5th day of December, 2006.
s\Harold A. Baker ________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 FedEx later offered to reinstate Marcotte, but he declined. He argues he was constructively discharged because management had become openly hostile to him, and continued employment at FedEx would be intolerable.
6 FedEx’s policy is to terminate an employee who receives three disciplinary warnings within twelve months. The warning for the driving violation was Marcotte’s third warning.
4

 
 E-FILED
Wednesday, 04 April, 2007 11:11:43 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

DAVID MARCOTTE and ROBERT

)

KEROUAC

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP.

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Case No. 04-2209 Judge Harold Baker

CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION 1. On September 29, 2004, Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) filed a complaint in this action alleging that Defendant Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx Express” or “Defendant”) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 by subjecting Charging Party David Marcotte and a class of male employees to harassment because of their sex and by retaliating against Marcotte for complaining about the harassment. On October 20, 2005, EEOC filed its First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) against FedEx Express, which added allegations that FedEx Express retaliated against David Marcotte by terminating him and constructively discharging him. FedEx Express filed an answer denying these allegations. 2. This Decree is entered into in compromise of disputed claims to avoid the expense, uncertainty, and inconvenience of continued litigation. This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint and the First Amended

1

Complaint filed by EEOC in this action. FINDINGS
3. Having examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:
A. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties to this case;
B. The terms of this Decree are adequate, reasonable, equitable and just and the rights of the Charging Party, the class members, the EEOC, FedEx Express, and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree; and
C. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the Charging Party, the class members, EEOC, FedEx Express, and the public.
D. FedEx Express disputes the underlying claims, and FedEx Express’ agreement to this Decree is not an admission of liability and cannot be used as an admission of liability. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES 4. FedEx Express shall maintain and observe its Anti-Harassment Policy prohibiting the approval of, participation in, or acquiescence in a work environment that is sexually hostile to male employees at its Kankakee, IL facility and prohibiting retaliation in any way against any Kankakee, IL employee who reports a claim or incident of sexual harassment, files a Charge of Discrimination alleging sexual harassment, participates as a witness in a harassment investigation, or otherwise assists with the filing of a sexual harassment claim or the pursuit of benefits conferred by this Decree.
2

MONETARY RELIEF FOR CLAIMANTS 5. FedEx Express shall pay monetary damages totaling $ 275,000.00 to be distributed to David Marcotte and Robert Kerouac, (“the Claimants”) in the amounts indicated in their release agreements (attached hereto as Exhibit A) within ten (10) business days after FedEx Express’ receipt of the fully-executed release agreements. 6. FedEx Express shall also mail copies of the checks to EEOC. 7. Four thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-one cents 4,999.91 of Marcotte’s monetary payment shall be considered wages and FedEx Express shall deduct the employee’s share of payroll taxes and withholdings from this amount. FedEx Express shall also pay jointly to Marcotte and the Bank of Herscher twelve thousand, seven hundred fifty-five dollars and eighty-three cents ($12,755.83). FedEx Express shall not make any withholdings from the remainder of Marcotte’s monetary payment or Kerouac’s entire monetary payment and shall issue the Claimants IRS Form 1099 for these amounts.
POSTING OF NOTICE 8. Within five (5) business days following entry of this Decree, FedEx Express shall post a same-sized copy of the Notice signed by the Court (attached as Exhibit B to this Decree) in a conspicuous location easily accessible to and commonly frequented by employees at FedEx Express’ Kankakee facility for the duration of this Decree. FedEx Express shall ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. FedEx Express shall certify to EEOC in writing within ten (10) business days after entry of this Decree that the copy of the Notice has been properly posted and the location of such posting. The Notice shall remain posted for a period of two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. FedEx shall permit a representative of EEOC to enter FedEx’s Kankakee facility for purposes of verifying compliance with this paragraph at any time during normal business hours with five (5) business days prior notice.
3

TRAINING 9. FedEx Express shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII as follows:
A. Defendant shall provide training for all employees at the Kankakee facility (including all non-managerial employees and all operations managers, senior managers, and human resources representatives responsible for the Kankakee facility) during each of the two (2) years covered by this Decree with respect to the prevention and eradication of sexual harassment from the workplace.
B. FedEx Express shall provide the first required training within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days of the entry of this Consent Decree.
C. A registry of attendance for each training session shall be retained by FedEx Express for the duration of the Consent Decree.
10. The training described in this Decree will be conducted by a Human Resources Manager or Human Resources Senior Manager. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the training, FedEx Express will provide the EEOC with the training materials to be used and the name, address, telephone number, and resume of the Human Resources Manager or Senior Manager who will conduct the training.
11. FedEx Express shall certify to EEOC in writing within five (5) business days after each required training session has occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: a) the dates, location and duration of the training sessions; b) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance; c) a listing of all current employees as of the date of the training session; and d) copies of pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written materials provided to the participants of the training sessions.
RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING 12. FedEx Express agrees that, from the date of entry of this Decree, every six months for the duration of this Decree, FedEx Express will provide a written report to the EEOC
4

listing employee complaints made subsequent to the entry of this Decree regarding alleged sexual harassment of men at the Kankakee facility. Such listings shall include the name of the complainant, the date of the complaint, what was alleged, the names of any witnesses, what actions FedEx Express took to resolve the complaint, if any, and the resolution of the complaint.
13. FedEx shall make all non-privileged documents or records which refer or relate to employee complaints made subsequent to the entry of this Decree regarding alleged sexual harassment of men at the Kankakee facility available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after the EEOC so requests. In addition, FedEx shall provide contact information for all persons within its employ whom the EEOC reasonably requests for the purpose of verifying compliance with this Decree.
14. For the duration of this Decree, FedEx Express shall also furnish to the EEOC a semi-annual certification that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 8, above, remained posted during the entire six (6) month period preceding the report.
15. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation Defendant may otherwise have to maintain records under Title VII or any other law or regulation.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 16. In the event that either party believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provisions of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the alleged non-complying party in writing of such non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party fifteen (15) calendar days to remedy the non-compliance or 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 fifteen (15) calendar days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 17. All provisions of this Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain
5

jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of this period, any disputes under Paragraph 16, above, remain unresolved, the EEOC shall seek leave to extend its duration for good cause shown and the Court may retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 18. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon FedEx Express, its successors and assigns. 19. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, attorney’s fees, and costs. 20. If any provision(s) of the Decree are found to be unlawful, only such provision(s) shall be severed, and the remainder of the Decree shall remain in full force and effect. 21. When the Decree requires the submission by FedEx Express of documents to the EEOC, they shall be delivered to: Jeanne Szromba, FedEx Express Consent Decree, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago District Office, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. When the Decree requires the submission by the EEOC of documents, they shall be delivered to: Jay L. Grytdahl, Federal Express Legal Department, 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Building B, Third Floor, Memphis, TN 38125.
6

For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
RONALD COOPER General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 W. Madison St., Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8558

/s John C. Hendrickson John Hendrickson ARDC # 1187589 Attorney for Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov

/s Jeanne B. Szromba Jeanne B. Szromba ARDC # 6207846 Attorney for Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-7546 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: jeanne.szromba@eeoc.gov

/s Diane I. Smason Diane I. Smason ARDC # 6626130 Attorney for Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-7526 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: diane.smason@eeoc.gov

/s Ann M. Henry Ann Henry ARDC # 6272394 Attorney for Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-8558 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: ann.henry@eeoc.gov

7

For DAVID MARCOTTE

For ROBERT KEROUAC

/s David Marcotte David Marcotte 186 1/2 W. River Street Bourbonnais, IL 60914
For FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP.
/s Jay L. Grytdahl Jay L. Grytdahl, Esq. ARDC# 6271036 Senior Counsel, Litigation Federal Express Corporation 3620 Hacks Cross Road 3rd Floor – Building B Memphis, TN 38125 Telephone: (901) 434-8590 Fax: (901) 434-9278 E-Mail: jlgrytdahl@fedex.com

/s Robert E. Kerouac Robert E. Kerouac 1167 Holly Court Bradley Illinois 60915

ENTER:

DATE:

_s/Harold A. Baker_____________________ ___April 4, 2007________________________ The Honorable Judge Harold Baker United States District Judge

8

EXHIBIT A

RELEASE In consideration for $ 250,000.00 paid to me by Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx Express”), in connection with the resolution of EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 04-2209 (C.D. Ill.), I waive my right to recover for any claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, that I had against FedEx Express prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in EEOC’s complaint in EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 04-2209.

___________________ Date

____________________________ David Marcotte

RELEASE In consideration for $25,000.00 paid to me by Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx Express”), in connection with the resolution of EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 04-2209 (C.D. Ill.), I waive my right to recover for any claims of sexual harassment arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, that I had against FedEx Express prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in EEOC’s complaint in EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 04-2209.

___________________ Date

____________________________ Robert Kerouac

EXHIBIT B

NOTICE TO ALL KANKAKEE FEDEX EXPRESS EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court by the agreement of the parties in EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 04-2209, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against FedEx Express.
In its suit, the EEOC alleged that FedEx Express discriminated against male employees by subjecting them to a sexually hostile work environment. EEOC also claimed that FedEx retaliated against an employee who complained about the harassment. FedEx Express denies these allegations.
To resolve the claims against FedEx Express, FedEx Express and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which provides, among other things, that:
1) FedEx will provide certain relief as provided in the Consent Decree;
2) FedEx shall maintain and observe its anti-harassment policy, which prohibits, among other things, sexual harassment and retaliation; and
3) FedEx will continue to provide mandatory training to all of its employees regarding sexual harassment.
EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, and age. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact EEOC at (312) 353-2713. EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.
FedEx Express maintains policies prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, and age. These policies are reproduced in your employee handbook and the online and printed versions of the FedEx People Manual. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may also contact your manager or anyone in the Human Resources department, including your FedEx Express Human Resources representative, Michael Rodriguez, at 847-215-4114.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for two (2) years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced of covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: FedEx Express Consent Decree, EEOC, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661.

_April 4, 2007_____ Date

______s/Harold A. Baker____________________ The Honorable Judge Harold Baker

 
 ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...
21, 23, CLASS, CLOSED, REFER
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Urbana)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Express Corp Assigned to: Judge Harold A. Baker Referred to: Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/29/2004 Date Terminated: 04/04/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Jeanne B Szromba UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 W Madison Ste 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 312-353-7546 Fax: 312-353-8555 Email: jeanne.szromba@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hendrickson EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Ste 2800 500 W Madison St Chicago, IL 60661 312-353-8551 Fax: 312-353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann M Henry UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 W Madison Ste 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 312-353-8558 Fax: 312-353-8555 Email: ann.henry@eeoc.gov

1 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

Intervenor Plaintiff David Marcotte
Intervenor Plaintiff Robert Kerouac
V. Defendant Federal Express Corp

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Diane I Smason EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Ste 2800 500 W Madison St Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7659 Fax: 312-353-8555 Email: diane.smason@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ethan M M Cohen UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 W Madison Ste 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 312-353-7568 Fax: 312-353-8555 Email: ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Marcotte 186 1/2 River St Bourbonnais, IL 60914 815-549-5529 PRO SE
represented by Robert Kerouac 1167 Holly Ct Bradley, IL 60915 815-932-9921 PRO SE
represented by Sandra C Isom FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION Legal Department 3620 Hacks Cross Rd Memphis, TN 38125 901-683-5880

2 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

Fax: 901-434-9271 Email: scisom@fedex.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fred K Heinrich HEINRICH & ASSOCIATES 3121 Village Office Place Champaign, IL 61822 217-398-2242 Fax: 217-398-5804 Email: fkheinrich@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay L Grytdahl FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Cross Rd Bldg B, 3rd Floor Memphis, TN 38125 901-434-8590 Fax: 901-434-9278 Email: jlgrytdahl@fedex.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2004 09/29/2004 09/29/2004 09/29/2004 10/14/2004 10/14/2004 10/18/2004
11/03/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Federal Express Corp filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Filing Fee Waived)(MT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
2 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney Jeanne B. Szromba by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
3 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney Diane I. Smason by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
4 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney John C. Hendrickson by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
5 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Jay L Grytdahl on behalf of Federal Express Corp (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
6 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST pursuant to Local Rule 11.3 by Federal Express Corp. (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Federal Express Corp waiver sent on 10/1/2004, answer due 11/30/2004. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
8 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Fred K Heinrich on behalf of Federal Express Corp (Heinrich, Fred) (Entered: 11/03/2004)

3 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

11/23/2004 12/01/2004 01/27/2005 01/27/2005 01/27/2005 01/27/2005 02/10/2005
02/15/2005 04/08/2005 04/12/2005
06/15/2005 08/02/2005

9 ANSWER to Complaint by Defendant Federal Express Corp.(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
10 ORDER setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 2/10/2005 11:00 AM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/1/04. See written order.(MT, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
11 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Ann M Henry on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
12 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Compliance. (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
13 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Compliance. (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
14 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker : Scheduling Conference held on 2/10/2005. Appearance of plaintiff by Jeanne Szromba; appearance of defendant by Fred Heinrich/Jay Grytdahl. Pretrial Conference set for 1/10/2006 01:30 PM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. Jury Selection set for 1/17/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. Telephone Status Conference set for 4/11/2005 01:30 PM before Judge Harold A. Baker. See discovery plan 14 for further deadlines.(Court Reporter TJ.) (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Text Order entered 2/10/05 omitted the jury trial date. Jury selection and Jury Trial set for 1/17/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom A before Judge Harold A. Baker. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 4/8/2005. Status Conference set for 4/11/2005 at 1:30 PM has been rescheduled to 4/12/2005 at 1:30 PM by telephone (court will place call) before Judge Harold A. Baker. The parties notified by phone. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker on 4/12/05 with appearance of Atty Szromba for plaintiff/Atty Heinrich for defendant. Status Conference held. Parties inform the Court that they are on schedule. Jury Trial scheduled for 1/17/06 is VACATED and Jury Selection/Jury Trial is rescheduled for 2/6/2006 at 9:00 PM before Judge Harold A. Baker. Further Status Conference is set for 6/15/2005 at 10:00 AM by telephone before Judge Harold A. Baker, court will place the call.(Court Reporter T J.) (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker : Status Conference held on 6/15/2005. Appearance for the plaintiff by Jeanne Szomba. Appearance for the defendant by Jay Grytdahl. Parties are on schedule. (Court Reporter TJ.) (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
15 First MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 8/16/2005 (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 08/02/2005)

4 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

08/03/2005 08/04/2005
08/16/2005 08/16/2005
09/09/2005 09/12/2005 09/19/2005
09/27/2005 09/28/2005 10/11/2005

16 Exhibit re 15 First MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/4/05. On August 2, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to discovery requests [#15]. The matter is set for hearing on Friday, August 19, 2005 at 8:45 a.m. by telephone conference call. The court will initiate the call. In the meantime, the parties are ordered to confer and genuinely attempt to resolve all matters in dispute. Either party's unwillingness to meet and confer in good faith shall be viewed most unfavorably by the court. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
17 NOTICE Withdrawing EEOC's Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Responses to EEOC's Discovery Requests by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/16/05. On August 2, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel. A hearing on the motion was scheduled for Friday, August 19, 2005 at 8:45 a.m. On August 16, 2005, the plaintiff filed a notice to withdraw the motion to compel, which the court construes as a motion to withdraw the motion to compel. The motion to withdraw the motion to compel [#17] is granted; the motion to compel [#15] is withdrawn. The August 19, 2005 hearing is vacated. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
18 MOTION to Compel Employee Handbook and People Manual by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 9/23/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Errata Part 1 of 4# 2 Exhibit Part 2 of 4# 3 Exhibit Part 3 of 4# 4 Exhibit Part 4 of 4)(Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
19 RESPONSE to Motion re 18 MOTION to Compel Employee Handbook and People Manual filed by Defendant Federal Express Corp. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
TEXT ORDER Setting Hearing entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 9/19/05. On September 9, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendant to produce its employee handbook and people manual [#18]. The defendant has filed its response to the motion [#19]. A motion hearing is scheduled for October 14, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. by telephone conference call. The court will initiate the call. In the meantime, the parties are ordered to confer and genuinely attempt to resolve all matters in dispute. Either party's unwillingness to meet and confer in good faith shall be viewed most unfavorably by the court. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
20 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and to Re-Open Discovery by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 10/11/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint)(Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
21 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 20 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and to Re-Open Discovery filed by Defendant Federal Express Corp. (Attachments: # 1)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
22 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Federal Express Corp. Responses due by 11/1/2005 (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 10/11/2005)

5 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

10/11/2005
10/14/2005
10/14/2005
10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 11/29/2005 12/02/2005

23 MEMORANDUM re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Federal Express Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1A# 2 Exhibit Ex. 1B# 3 Exhibit Ex. 2 thru Ex. 5# 4 Exhibit Ex. 6 to Ex. 11# 5 Exhibit Ex. 12 to Ex. 17# 6 Exhibit Ex. 18 to Ex. 24# 7 Exhibit Ex. 25 to Ex. 32# 8 Exhibit Ex. 33 to Ex. 39# 9 Exhibit Ex. 40 to Ex. 44# 10 Exhibit Ex. 45 to Ex. 52# 11 Exhibit Ex. 53 to Ex. 63# 12 Exhibit Ex. 64 to Ex. 71# 13 Exhibit Ex. 72 to Ex. 75# 14 Exhibit Ex. 76 to Ex. 83# 15 Exhibit Ex. 84 to Ex. 88)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker : Motion Hearing held on 10/14/2005 re 18 Motion to Compel, 20 Motion for Leave to File, 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Appearance of plaintiff by Jeanne Szromba/Ann Henry; appearance of defendant by Jay Grytdahl. Motions 18 and 20 are GRANTED. Motion 22 is denied with leave to refile after discovery is complete. Case management order will be entered. (Court Reporter TJ.) (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
24 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 10/14/05. The plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within seven days of the date of this order. The defendant shall file its answer within 14 days thereafter. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/11/2006 01:30 PM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. Jury Selection and Jury Trial set for 4/17/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. Status Conference set for 12/9/2005 02:00 PM by telephone (court will place call) before Judge Harold A. Baker. See written order. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Miscellaneous Deadline 10/21/2005 for amended complaint to be filed. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Miscellaneous Deadline 10/21/05 was in error. Miscellaneous deadline is corrected to 10/25/2005 for the amended complaint to be filed. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
Notice of Docket Text or Event Modification. The docket entry setting a 10/25/05 deadline for amended complaint to be filed was entered in the wrong case number and the deadline has been terminated. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
25 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Federal Express Corp, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
26 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Defendant Federal Express Corp.(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
27 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Defendant Federal Express Corp. Responses due by 12/13/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Notice of Depositions)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/2/2005. On November 29, 2005, the defendant filed a motion for extension of time to complete discovery and file dispositive motions. The motion [#27] is granted in part and denied in part. The deadline for completion of discovery is extended to January 20, 2006. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to February 3, 2006. Responses and replies shall be filed in accordance with the Local Rules. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 12/02/2005)

6 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

12/02/2005 12/09/2005 01/19/2006 02/01/2006 02/01/2006
02/22/2006 02/22/2006
02/23/2006
03/07/2006

Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 1/20/2006. Motions due by 2/3/2006. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker. Status Conference held on 12/9/2005. Appearance of plaintiff by Jeanne Szromba. Appearance of defendant by Jay Grytdahl. Parties advised court they are on track. (Tape #B10:657-740.) (SLJ, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
28 NOTICE Stipulation Substitution of Counsel by Federal Express Corp (Heinrich, Fred) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
29 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Federal Express Corp. Responses due by 2/22/2006 (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
30 MEMORANDUM re 29 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by Federal Express Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-11# 2 Exhibit 12-23# 3 Exhibit 24# 4 Exhibit 25-35# 5 Exhibit 36-42# 6 Exhibit 43-44# 7 Exhibit 45-49# 8 Exhibit 50-57# 9 Exhibit 58-73# 10 Exhibit 74-89# 11 Exhibit 90-92# 12 Exhibit 93-108# 13 Exhibit 109-123# 14 Exhibit 124-146# 15 Exhibit 148)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
31 RESPONSE to Motion re 29 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Szromba, Jeanne) THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER OF 2/2306. Modified on 2/23/2006 (MT, ilcd). (Entered: 02/22/2006)
32 RESPONSE to Motion re 29 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3# 2 Exhibit 4# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 11# 9 Exhibit 12# 10 Exhibit 13# 11 Exhibit 14# 12 Exhibit 15# 13 Exhibit 17# 14 Exhibit 18# 15 Exhibit 19# 16 Exhibit 1# 17 Exhibit Exhibits A-C of Exhibit 1# 18 Exhibit Exhibits D-F to Exhibit 1# 19 Exhibit Exhibits G-I to Exhibit 1# 20 Exhibit 2, Part 1# 21 Exhibit 2, Part 2# 22 Exhibit 2, Part 3# 23 Exhibit 10, Part 1# 24 Exhibit 10, Part 2# 25 Exhibit 16, Part 1# 26 Exhibit 16, Part 2)(Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 2/23/06. On February 22, 2006, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment 31, and a second response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment with attached exhibits 32. The first response appears to be incorporated into the second response; therefore, the first response 31 is stricken. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/7/06. On February 1, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment 29 and supporting memorandum with 148 exhibits 30. The defendant also provided a courtesy copy to the court. On February 22, 2006, the plaintiff filed a response to the motion for summary judgment 32 with 26 exhibits totaling well over 100 pages. Neither party filed an index of exhibits as required by this court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing, paragraph C of Section V, page 31. The parties are ordered to file an index of their exhibits within five days of the date of this order. The plaintiff is further ordered to mail to the court a paper courtesy copy of its response and 26 exhibits. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

7 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

03/07/2006 03/09/2006 03/10/2006 03/10/2006 03/13/2006
03/13/2006 03/17/2006

33 Exhibit re 32 Response to Motion,, Index of Exhibits by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
34 Exhibit re 30 Memorandum, Index of Exhibits by Federal Express Corp. (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
35 REPLY to Response to Motion re 29 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Federal Express Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-19# 2 Exhibit 20-25# 3 Exhibit 26 - 33)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
36 Exhibit re 35 Reply to Response to Motion Exhibit Index by Federal Express Corp. (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENTS entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/13/06. On March 9, 2006, the defendant filed an index of 147 exhibits in support of its motion for summary judgment. The index reflects that many of the exhibits are single pages of the same deposition. The motion for summary judgment 29, all exhibits 30, and the index 34 are stricken, as are the plaintiff's response and exhibits 32 and exhibit index 33 and the defendant's reply and exhibits 35 and exhibit index 36. The defendant shall file a renewed motion for summary judgment with supporting exhibits and index. If the defendant refers only once to the deposition of a particular witness, the relevant page or pages shall be filed as one exhibit. If multiple references to different pages of a witness's deposition are relied upon, the defendant must file the entire deposition of that individual as a single exhibit, instead of filing scattered pages of the witness's deposition as multiple exhibits. The same procedure should be followed for documents. The motion for summary judgment shall be edited to reflect the changes in exhibit number. The plaintiff's response and the defendant's reply shall be edited and refiled to refer to previously-filed exhibits wherever possible; no duplicate depositions or documents should be filed if a party has already filed the complete deposition or document in accordance with this order. Any additional exhibits relied upon in the plaintiff's response or defendant's reply, which have not been filed in an earlier pleading, must be filed in accordance with this order (i.e., filing the entire deposition or document if referred to more than once) and accompanied by an index. The parties shall provide the court with a courtesy copy of their filings. The defendant's motion, exhibits, and index shall be refiled on or before March 20, 2006. The plaintiff's response, any new exhibits, and index shall be refiled on or before March 27, 2006. The defendant's reply, any new exhibits, and index shall be refiled on or before April 3, 2006. The final pretrial conference now scheduled for April 11, 2006 and jury selection/jury trial now scheduled for April 17, 2006 are vacated and rescheduled as follows: a final pretrial conference is now scheduled for January 8, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. by personal appearance. Jury selection/jury trial are scheduled to begin on January 22, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to Text Order of 3/13/06, Miscellaneous Deadline set for 3/20/2006 for motion to be filed; Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/8/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. Jury Selection/Jury Trial set for 1/22/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
37 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Federal Express Corp. Responses due by 4/7/2006 (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

8 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

03/17/2006
03/23/2006
03/30/2006 12/05/2006 12/05/2006 01/04/2007 01/10/2007 01/10/2007
01/10/2007 01/12/2007

38 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Federal Express Corp. (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 11-13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15, 17, 21, 22# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 18# 16 Exhibit 19# 17 Exhibit 20# 18 Exhibit 23-37# 19 Exhibit 38-49# 20 Exhibit 50# 21 Exhibit INDEX)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
39 RESPONSE to Motion re 37 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit INDEX# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 1, exhibits a-c# 4 Exhibit 1, exhibits d-f# 5 Exhibit 1, exhibits g-i# 6 Exhibit 2# 7 Exhibit 3# 8 Exhibit 4, part 1# 9 Exhibit 4, part 2# 10 Exhibit 5# 11 Exhibit 6# 12 Exhibit 7# 13 Exhibit 8# 14 Exhibit 9# 15 Exhibit 10# 16 Exhibit 11)(Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion re 37 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Federal Express Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit 51-54)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
41 ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/5/06. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 37 is denied. The final pretrial conference is scheduled for 1/8/07 at 2:00 p.m. by personal appearance. Jury selection and jury trial are scheduled to begin on 1/22/07 at 9:00 a.m. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Pursuant to Order 41 entered 12/5/06, theFinal Pretrial Conference remains set for 1/8/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker, and the Jury Trial remains set for 1/22/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 1/4/07. At the request of the parties, the final pretrial conference now scheduled for January 8, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. is vacated and rescheduled for January 16, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. by personal appearance.(MT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
42 ORDER entered by Judge David G. Bernthal on 1/10/07. Settlement Conference set for 1/12/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom C before Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal.(MT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker. Appearance of plaintiff by Jeanne Szromba/Diane Smason; appearance of defendant by Jay Grytdahl. Status Conference held on 1/10/2007. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 1/18/2007 01:30 PM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. (Court Reporter TJ.) (MT, ilcd) Modified on 1/10/2007 to add party appearances. (MT, ilcd). (Entered: 01/10/2007)
Notice of Docket Text or Event Modification: The Minute Entry entered 1/10/07 was modified to add the party appearances. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held 1/12/07 before Judge David G. Bernthal. Appearance for plaintiff by Robert Kerouac and David Marcotte with counsel Jeanne Szromba, Ann Henry, and Diane Smason. Appearance for defendant by R. Jeffery Kelsey with counsel Jay Grytdahl. Settlement Conference held. No settlement reached. (Not taped.) (KM, ilcd) (Entered: 01/12/2007)

9 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/17/2007 01/17/2007 01/17/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007
01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007
01/19/2007

43 MOTION in Limine Nos. 1 - 6 by Defendant Federal Express Corp.Responses due by 1/30/2007 (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
44 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Sandra C Isom on behalf of Federal Express Corp (Isom, Sandra) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
45 Proposed Voir Dire by Federal Express Corp. (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
46 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Non-disclosed Witnesses by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Responses due by 1/31/2007 (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
47 Second MOTION in Limine by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Responses due by 1/31/2007 (Attachments: # 1)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
48 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 43 MOTION in Limine Nos. 1 - 6 filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
49 Proposed Pretrial Order (Joint) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
50 TRIAL BRIEF by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
51 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Ethan M M Cohen on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker. Final Pretrial Conference held on 1/18/2007. Appearance of plaintiff by Jeanne Szromba and Ann Henry. Appearance of defendant by Sandra Isom, Fred Heinrich, Jay Grytdahl, Shelley Orcutt. The Court strikes the jury instructions in the proposed pretrial order 49. (Court Reporter TJ.) (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
52 PRETRIAL ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 1/18/07. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
55 MOTION Emergency Status Conference and Continuance by Defendant Federal Express Corp.Responses due by 2/1/2007 (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
56 RESPONSE to Motion re 46 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Non-disclosed Witnesses re: Existence of Non-Victims filed by Defendant Federal Express Corp. (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
57 RESPONSE to Motion re 47 Second MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Testimony of Witnesses Not Previously Disclosed filed by Defendant Federal Express Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index to Exhibits# 2 Exhibit A-C# 3 Exhibit D-E# 4 Exhibit F# 5 Exhibit G# 6 Exhibit H)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
58 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 1/19/07. Rule to Show Cause Hearing set for 1/23/2007 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. Clerk is directed to locate the claimants in this case, David Marcotte and Robert Kerouac, and direct them to make a personal appearance at the show cause hearing for all parties provided for in this order. If

10 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

01/22/2007 01/23/2007 01/23/2007
01/23/2007 01/23/2007 01/23/2007 02/06/2007
02/07/2007 02/07/2007 02/23/2007 03/01/2007

Marcott and Kerouac have their own personal attorneys, they should be accompanied by their own attorney at the hearing. The personal appearance of counsel for the defendant is also required. See written order.(KW, ilcd) Modified on 1/19/2007 (KW, ilcd). (Entered: 01/19/2007)
59 RESPONSE to Motion re 55 MOTION Emergency Status Conference and Continuance filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
60 Exhibit in Connection with FedEx's Emergency Motion (DKT # 55) by Federal Express Corp. (Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker : Show Cause Hearing held on 1/23/2007. Appearances for the plaintiff EEOC by Jeanne Szrinba, John Hendrickson and Ann Henry. Claimants David Marcotte and Robert Kerouac appeared personally. Appearances for the defendants by Jay Grytdahl. Court inquires if Mr. Marcotte and Mr. Kerouac wants to intervene. Oral motion on behalf of the claimants to intervene as a party; motion granted. Clerk directed to add Mr. Marcotte and Mr. Kerouac as pro se plaintiffs. Further hearing scheduled on 2/6/07 at 2:00 by personal appearance, unless, parties have signed a consent decree. The Rule against Ms. Szromba is discharged. (Court Reporter TJ.) (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 2/6/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
61 EXHIBIT #1: WILL Radio Station Report on 1/18/07(KW, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
62 EXHIBIT #2: Press Release give out by EEOC on 1/18/07.(KW, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 2/6/07. Due to the weather, the hearing now scheduled for Tuesday, February 6, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. by personal appearance is vacated and rescheduled for Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. by personal appearance. The intervenors may appear by telephone. The court will initiate the telephone call.(KW, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 2/7/07. The Rule to Show Cause hearing scheduled for 2/7/07 at 1:30 has been cancelled and reset to 3/13/2007 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom B before Judge Harold A. Baker. Copy mailed to pro se intervenors. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
63 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/22/07 before Judge Harold A. Baker. Court Reporter: TJ. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
64 CERTIFICATE of Service/Counsel re 44 Notice of Appearance of Attorney by Sandra C Isom on behalf of Federal Express Corp (Isom, Sandra) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/1/07. Due to postponements caused by the weather and other problems, the rule to show cause hearing originally scheduled for February 6, 2007 is now scheduled for March 13, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. by personal appearance. John Hendricksen, Jeanne

11 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

03/02/2007 03/12/2007
03/13/2007 03/13/2007
03/19/2007 04/03/2007 04/04/2007 04/04/2007

Szromba, Ann Henry, David Marcotte, Robert Kerouac, Jay Grytdahl and the Chief Executive Officer of Federal Express are ordered to appear personally before the court in Urbana, Illinois. The clerk is directed to send notice by mail to Marcotte and Kerouac.(MT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
65 MOTION Motion for Relief from Order Requiring the Appearance of its Chief Executive Officer re Order, Set/Reset Hearings,,,, by Defendant Federal Express Corp.Responses due by 3/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Grytdahl, Jay) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/12/07. The defendant has filed a motion for relief from the court's order of March 1, 2007, requiring the appearance of its chief executive officer at the March 13, 2007, hearing. The defendant argues that the appropriate officer or director with authority to settle this case is Jeana Littrell. The court grants the defendant's motion for relief from the order requiring the appearance of Federal Express Corporation's CEO, David Bronczek 65. Ms. Littrell may appear in substitution for David Bronczek, provided Ms. Littrell has full authority to settle this case without further consultation with other Federal Express employees. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/13/07. Jury selection and jury trial are scheduled to begin on Monday, April 16, 2007 at 9:00 AM before the court in Urbana, Illinois. (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David G. Bernthal. Appearance of plaintiff by Jeanne Szromba/John Hendrickson/Ann Henry; appearance of intervenor plaintiff Marcotte personally; appearance of intervenor plaintiff Keroua personally; appearance of defendant by Jay Grytdahl with corporation representative Jeana Littrell. Show Cause Hearing not held on 3/13/2007. Settlement conference held. Parties report settlement reached. Consent Order to be tendered to the Court. (Tape #UR-C 1:36 PM.) (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
66 ORDER FOLLOWING REPORT OF SETTLEMENT entered by Judge David G. Bernthal on 3/19/07. Parties are hereby directed to file their consent decree by 4/9/07. The jury trial (April 16, 2007) will remain scheduled until the consent decree is filed and the case is officially closed.(MT, ilcd) Modified on 3/19/2007 to correct typographical error. (MT, ilcd). (Entered: 03/19/2007)
67 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Responses due by 4/20/2007 (Smason, Diane) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 4/4/07. The parties have filed a joint motion for entry of a consent decree. The motion 67 is granted. A separate consent decree to be entered. Thereafter, the clerk of the court is directed to terminate this case. The court will retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the consent decree. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 4/4/07. Pending in this case is a rule to show cause why John Hendricksen should not be held in contempt and appropriate sanctions applied. The rule is now discharged. (MT, ilcd) (Entered:

12 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM

ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - U.S. District Court ILCD - Docket ... https://ecf.ilcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?104264437421901-L_35...

04/04/2007

04/04/2007)
68 CONSENT DECREE entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 4/4/07. Civil Case Terminated.(MT, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/12/2007 09:04:53

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:04-cv-02209-HAB-DGB

Billable Pages:

9

Cost:

0.72

13 of 13

6/12/2007 9:06 AM