CAND-ECF - Docket Report

CV 6.:98 s

Page 1 of3

ADRMOP, CLOSED

U.S. District Court

.3)

California Northern District (San Francisco)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:03-cv-05020-JCS

Internal Use Only

Davis y. Eastman Kodak Co. Assigned to: Hon. Joseph C. Spero Referred to: Demand: $500000 Lead Docket: None Related Cases: None Case in other court: None Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 11/12/03 Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Courtney Davis

represented by Courtney Davis 39978 Lindsay McDermott Lane Fremont, CA 94538
510-226-1695
PRO SE

V.

Defendant

Eastman Kodak Co.

ionÏfshttrheuermeoberynitgciiensrataSl tforyunethfaialnetdtihnceomraryencnotefcxfoiecpdey.

ATTEST:

RICHARD WIEKING

Clerk, liS. D.
NorthernDiS

surt
.Y frnia

By GI

02M
Date

represented by Michael D. Thomas, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP Two Embarcadero Center 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 984-8200 Fax : 415-984-8300 Email: mthomas@nixonpeabody.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY To BE NOTICED

Filing Date

#

Docket Text

11/12/2003

Ji COMPLAINT FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINAl'ION; no process issued against Eastman Kodak Co. (Filing fee $ifpp ). Filed by pro se Courtney Davis. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

PDF comhpttrpess:s//ieocnf.,cOanCd.Rci,rcw9e.dbcnolpctgiim-bizinalDtiokntRupst.ipnlg?4a89w9a8t8e2r8m97a9rk4e92d2e-Lv_a7lu9a5t_io0-ni copy of CVISION PD3F/2C/0o4mpressor

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 2 of 3

11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/24/2003 11/25/2003
11/25/2003 12/23/2003
01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/23/2004 01/30/2004 02/09/2004

J2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by
3/5/2004. Case Management Conference set for 3/12/2004 at 01:30 PM. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
J3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by pro se
Courtney Davis. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
J4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by pro se Courtney Davis. (gba,
COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
'35 CONSENT to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Courtney Davis. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2003) (Entered:
11/29/2003)
'36 ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting plaintiffs application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [3], and denying request for appointment of counsel without prejudice [4]. (gba, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 11/25/2003) (Entered: 11/29/2003)
J Summons Issued as to Eastman Kodak Co.. (gba, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 11/25/2003) (Entered: 11/29/2003)
J7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Courtney Davis, Eastman Kodak
Co.. Eastman Kodak Co. served on 12/2/2003, answer due 12/22/2003. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2003) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
'38 CONSENT to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Eastman Kodak Co. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2004) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
J9 MOTION to Dismiss for improper venue filed by Eastman Kodak
Co.. Motion Hearing set for 2/27/2004 09:30 AM. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2004) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
'310 AFFIDAVIT of Arthur H. Roberts in support of motion to dismiss [9]
by Eastman Kodak Co. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2004) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
Ji i MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Courtney Davis. (gba,
COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
'312 ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying without prejudice plaintiffs renewed request for appointment of counsel [11]. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2004) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
'313 THIRD MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Courtney Davis. (gba,

PDF comhttpprse:/s/seciof.nc,anOdC.cRirc,9w.decbnlocgpit-imbinizlDatkiotRnput.spi1n?g48a99w8a8t2e8r9m7a94rk9e2d2-eLv7a9lu5at0i-o1n copy of CVISION P3D/F2/C04ompressor

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 3 of3

02/27/2004
03/01/2004 03/01/2004 03/O 1/2004

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2004) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
14 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 2/27/2004 before Judge Joseph C. Spero (Date Filed: 2/27/2004). Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue is granted in part; denied in part. Plaintiffs third motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot. Order to be prepared by court. (Court Reporter Rosita Flores.) (gba, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/27/2004) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
15 ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying without prejudice request
for appointment of counsel [13]. Granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss for improper venue under federal rule of civil
procedure 12(b)(3) [9] and TRANSFERRING action to the Western
District of New York. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2004)
(Entered: 03/02/2004)
***Civil Case Terminated. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2004) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
J Certified copy of transferral order and docket sheet with the original
case file sent to United States District for the Western District of New York via certified mail. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2004)
(Entered: 03/02/2004)

PDF comhtptprse:/s/seciof.nc,anOdC.cRirc, 9w.decbnlocgpit-imbiniz/DatkiotRnput.spiln?g48a99w8a8t2e8r9m79a4rk92e2d-Le_v7a9l5u_aOti-o1n copy of CVISION PD3/F2/C04ompressor

 
 1AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgm ent in a Civil Case 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN

DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

COURTNEY DAVIS, EMPLOYEES COMMITTED FOR JUSTICE, GLADYS ALSTON, CYNTHIA GAYDEN, ROBERT GIBSON, JANNIE NESMITH, NORALEAN PRINGLE, CARRIE RICE, MARIA SCOTT, OLIN SINGLETARY, EDNA WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff(s), vs.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

EASTMAN KODAK CO., Defendant(s)

CASE NUMBER: 04-CV-6098

G Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendant as to the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary.

March 29, 2007 Date

RODNEY C. EARLY Clerk

(By) S/ Bryan J. Blough Bryan J. Blough, CLA Deputy Clerk

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAVIS et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
- vs -
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant.

6:04-C V-06098-CJS(IF) Settlement Agreement

ALSTON et aL, individually and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs,
- vs -
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant.

07-CV-6512 Seulement Agreement

This Seulement Agreement and Release (the "Agreement") is entered into between Plaintiff Employees Committed for Justice ("ECJ"), an organization of African American current and former employees of Defendant Eastman Kodak Company ("Defendant" or "Kodak"), individual Plaintiffs Courtney Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Victor Smith, Edna Williams, Gladys Alston, Thomas Gainey, Carrie Rice,
as representatives of the class described herein, and Olin Singletary (estate of Olin Singletary), all of whom are represented by their attomeys, Berger & Montague, P.C., Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP and The Chavers Law Finn, P.C. (collectively, "Class Counsel"), and Kodak, which is represented by its attorneys, Nixon Peabody LLP and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

I. DEFINITIONS The terms set forth below shall have the meanings defined in this Section wherever used
in this Agreement and in all of its exhibits, including the Notice of Class Action Seulement. 1:1 "CAFA Notice" refers to the notice tobe sent by the Claims Administrator to
appropriate federal and state officials pursuant to the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b).
1.2 The "Civil Actions" mean the above-captioned actions. 1.3 For purposes of this Agreement, the class is defined as all African-American individuals employed by Kodak in the United States for at least one day between January 1, 1999 and May 18, 2006 (the "Class") (together the "Proposed Class Members" and each a "Proposed Class Member"), excluding interns/co-ops, individuals who were officers or executives, and excluding individuals who previously entered into individual releases (other than or in addition to TAP or ADR releases) as part of individual seulement agreements with Kodak. The list of all Proposed Class Members are attached as Exhibit A. 1.4 For purposes of this Agreement, the class period shall be defined as January 1,
1999 through the Final Approval Date ofthis Seulement as defined below in Paragraph 1.12 (the "Class Period" or "Relevant Time Period").
1.5 "Claims Administrator" means Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP ("Heftier, Radetich & Saitta LLP"), 1515 Market Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19102, telephone: (215) 665-8870; facsimile: (215) 665-0613.
1.6 "Class Counsel" means the law firms of Berger & Montague, P.C., Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher LLP, and The Chavers Law Firm, P.C. 1.7 "Class Member Declarants" means Andrew Gissendanner, Artiville Roberts, J.D.
Bonham, Catherine Cliff, Abraham Cyrus, Thaddeus Drains, John Graham, Cleveland Brown, Raymond Carter, Garland Lockett, Sharon Magnolia, Debris Monroe, and Cornell Walker, each
of whom submitted declarations in this matter and were deposed or subject to being deposed.
2
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

1.8 "Class Representatives" means ECJ, Courtney Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Victor Smith, Edna Williams, Gladys Alston, Thomas Gainey, and Carrie Rice. "Named Plaintiffs" means all of the Class
Representatives as well as Olin Singletary (estate of Olin Singletary). The term "ECJ Board
Member" means Mary Dukes. 1.9 "Counsel for Kodak" or "Counsel for Defendant" means the law firms of Nixon
Peabody LLP and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
1.10 The "Court" means the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
1.11 "Defendant" and the "Company" mean Eastman Kodak Company.
1.12 "Final Approval Date" means the date of entry of the Final Approval Order for
this Settlement.
1.13 "Effective Date" means the date upon which all of the following have occurred: (1) entry of an order by the Court certifying the Settlement Class; (2) entry of an order or orders by the Court granting final approval to the Agreement, approving the amount of attorneys' fees and costs and dismissing the Civil Actions; (3) the parties have filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dismissing the pending appeal in Davis et. al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04-CV-06098; (4) in the event that there are objections
filed to this Settlement, the appeal period (ja, 30 days) has run without an appeal of any Court
order, or in the event of an appeal, the Parties have received actual notice that the Settlement has received final approval after the completion of the appellate process and any appeals are dismissed; and (5) the period for Kodak to withdraw from the Agreement (Ls, 30 days from the Claims Administrator's receipt of all timely and complete requests for exclusion submitted by a
Class Representative and/or Proposed Class Member) has run. 1.14 The "Parties" means the Class Representatives and Defendant. 1.15 The "Preliminary Approval Order" means the Order entered by this Court
preliminarily approving the terms of this Agreement, certifying the Settlement Class, and preliminarily approving the payments of attorneys' fees, attorneys' costs, and the Service
3
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Payments, as set forth in this Agreement, scheduling a final fairness hearing, and directing the
mailing to the Settlement Class ofthe Notice of Class Action Settlement. 1.16 "Preliminary Approval Date" means the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order.
1.17 "Released Claims" means any and all claims of whatever nature, known or
unknown, that the Named Plaintiffs and Seulement Class Members may have against Kodak, its
subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and in the case of all such entities, their respective past and
present owners, representatives, officers, directors, attorneys, agents, employees, insurers, successors and assigns (collectively referred to as the "Released Parties"), relating to or arising
out of the same transactions, series of connected transactions, occurrences or nucleus of operative facts that form the basis of the claims that were or could have been asserted in (a) Davis et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04-CV-06098, including all pending claims on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and (b) Aiston et. al y. Eastman
Kodak Co., 07-CV-6512, which encompasses the state law action originally filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. This release includes and covers
without limitation all actions or omissions occurring through the Final Approval Date as defmed and all claims known or unknown for prior or past discriminatory actions outside any liability period, subject to the provisions set forth herein. Specifically included in this release are any and all employment discrimination claims or benefits claims relating to or arising out of the same
transactions, series of connected transactions, occurrences or nucleus of operative facts that form the basis of the claims that were or could have been asserted in (a) Davis et al y. Eastman Kodak
Co., 6:04-CV-06098, including all pending claims on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and (b) Alston et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 07-CV-6512, which encompasses the state law action originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, and subsequently r moved to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, including but not limited to, claims of alleged employment discrimination
4 PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

or benefits claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("ADEA"), the New York Human Rights Law, §
296 et al., and the Municipal Code of the City of Rochester, § 63-1 etal., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ("BRISA") (except for
vested benefits otherwise entitled), and any other federal, state, or local statutes, common law, or regulation. Furthermore, this Release includes all claims for any and all common law claims for fraud, duress, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement or any other state, local or federal claim relating to or arising from any and all claims relating to or arising out of the same transactions, series of connected transactions, occurrences or nucleus of operative facts that form the basis of the claims that were or could have been asserted in (a) Davis et. al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04CV-06098, including all pending claims on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and (b) Alston et. al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 07-CV-6512, which
encompasses the state law action originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Westem District ofNew York, including any such claims relating to severance or termination allowance
payments and/or relating in any way to Kodak' s Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") Peer Review Process. Furthermore, this Release includes all claims for monetary damages, injunctive, declaratory or equitable relief; and costs and attorneys' fees, whether arising under Title VII, Section 1981 or under any other federal, state, loca! or common laws or regulations
relating to or arising out of the same transactions, series of connected transactions, occurrences or nucleus of operative facts that form the basis of the claims that were or could have been asserted in (a) Davis et. al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04-CV-06098, including all pending claims on appeal before the United States Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit, and (b) Aiston et al
y. Eastman Kodak Co., 07-CV-6512, which encompasses the state law action originally filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Westem District ofNew York. Nothing in this
5
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Agreement shall affect or release any existing or potential workers' compensation claims of the
Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members. 1.18 "Released Parties" means Kodak, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and in
the case of all such entities, their respective past and present owners, representatives, officers,
directors, attorneys, agents, employees, insurers, successors and assigns. 1.19 "Seulement Agreement" or "Agreement" means this Agreement and all Exhibits
attached to it. 1.20 "Settlement Class" means all proposed class members as defined above in
Paragraph 1.3, who do not timely opt-out of the Settlement pursuant to the terms of the
Preliminary Approval Order (together the "Settlement Class Members" and individually each a "Settlement Class Member").
1.21 "Settlement Fund" means the amount of Twenty-One Million, Three Hundred and
Sçventy Six Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, and no cents ($21,376,500.00).
II. RECITALS 2.1 On July 30,2004, certain of the Class Representatives filed their First Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "ECJ Complaint") against Kodak in the United States District Court
for the Western District ofNew York on behalf ofAfrican American employees of Kodak.
2.2 On September 28, 2007, Class Representatives Gladys Alston, Thomas Gainey,
and Carrie Rice filed a Class Action Complaint against Kodak in the Supreme Court of the State ofNew York, County of Monroe, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees who had signed a release of claims in connection with their receipt of severance benefits pursuant to the Kodak Termination Allowance Plan ("TAP"), as well as a subclass of all African
American employees who, in addition to signing the TAP Release, also had signed a release relating to their participation in the ADR Peer Review Process.
2.3 After extensive discovery, analysis and deliberation, the Class Representatives
and Class Counsel are of the opinion that the seulement set forth in this Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate based on all the facts and circumstances, including the risk of
6
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

significant delay, the uncertainty of achieving class certification, the defenses asserted by
Defendant, and potential appellate issues that could impact or preclude any recovery for the Settlement Class Members.
2.4 It is the desire of the Parties to fully, finally, and forever settle, compromise, and discharge all disputes and claims arising from or related to the Civil Actions which exist between them and between the Released Parties and the Settlement Class.
2.5 It is the intention of the Parties that this Agreement shall constitute a full and complete settlement and release of all Released Claims against all Released Parties and a dismissal of all pending actions and/or appeals covered by the Released Claims.
2.6 Defendant denies all claims as to liability, wrongdoing, damages, penalties,
interest, fees, injunctive relief and all other forms of relief as well as the class allegations
asserted in the Civil Actions. Defendant has agreed to resolve the Civil Actions via this Agreement, but to the extent this Agreement is deemed void or the Effective Date does not occur, Defendant does not waive, but rather expressly reserves, all rights to challenge any and all claims and allegations asserted by the Class Representatives in the Civil Actions upon all procedural and substantive grounds, including without limitation the ability to challenge class action treatment on any grounds and to assert any and all other potential defenses or privileges. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel agree that Defendant retains and reserves these rights, and they agree not to take a position to the contrary. Specifically, the Class
Representatives and Class Counsel agree that, if the Civil Actions were to proceed, they will not
argue or present any argument, and hereby waive any argument that, based on this settlement or this Settlement Agreement or any exhibit and attachment hereto, or any act performed or
document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of this settlement or this Agreement, Defendant should be barred from contesting class action certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on any grounds, or from asserting any and all other potential defenses and privileges. This Agreement shall not be deemed an admission by, or ground for estoppel against Defendant that class action treatment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in the Civil
7
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Actions is proper or cannot be contested on any grounds. Additionally, neither the Agreement nor the settlement, nor any act performed or document executed pursuant to, or in furtherance of, the Agreement or the settlement: (a) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission
or evidence of the validity of any Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of the Released Parties, or any of them; or (b) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission or evidence of any fault or omission of the Released Parties, or any of them, in any
civil, criminal or administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal. 2.7 Similarly, Plaintiffs have agreed to resolve the Civil Actions via this Settlement
Agreement, but to the extent this Seulement Agreement is deemed void or the Effective Date does not occur, the Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members do not waive, but rather expressly reserve, all arguments available to them in support of their claims and allegations
asserted in the Civil Actions, and shall not be bound by any release set forth in Paragraph 1.17 of
this Settlement Agreement. 2.8 This Seulement Agreement is a compromise and shall not be construed as an
admission of liability at any time or for any purpose, under any circumstances, by the Released
Parties. The Parties and Seulement Class Members further acknowledge and agree that neither this Agreement nor the seulement shall be used to suggest an admission of liability in any dispute the Parties and Seulement Class may have now or in the future with respect to any person or entity. Neither this Agreement nor anything in it, nor any part of the negotiations that occurred in connection with the creation of this Seulement, shall constitute evidence with respect to any issue or dispute in any lawsuit, legal proceeding, or administrative proceeding, except for legal proceedings concerning the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement. III. THE SETTLEMENT FUND
3.1 To seule all Released Claims on behalf of the Class Representatives and Seulement Class Members, as defined in Paragraph 1.17, above, Defendant shall provide the hinds for the Claims Administrator to establish a Seulement Fund in the amount of Twenty-One Million, Three Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, and no cents
8
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

($21,376,500.00). This amount is the final and total amount of dollars that Kodak shall have any obligation to pay as part of this Settlement. The Seulement Fund shall be divided as follows
provided the Court finally approves the Settlement:
a total gross amount of $900,000.00 allocated for Class Representative service payments and a total gross amount of $70,000.00 allocated for the ECJ Board Member
and Class Member Declarant serviöe payments (collectively the "Service Payments"), described in more detail in Section 4.1, below;
a total gross amount of $9,655,500.00 allocated for the payment of all individual monetary awards to the Settlement Class Members, described in more detail in Section 5.1, below;
a total gross amount of up to $140,000.00 allocated to pay the class notice
and seulement administration expenses, with any remainder being donated to ECJ;
a total gross amount of $458,000.00, allocated to pay each ECJ member set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto, who is a current or former Kodak employee, a payment of no more than $500.00 per person for reimbursement of their time, expenses and participation in ECJ, described in more detail in Paragraph 5.2 below, with any remainder being donated to
ECJ;
a total gross amount of up to $453,000.00 allocated to compensate the Labor Economists/Statisticians and Industrial Psychologist (collectively, the "Experts") for their time and expenses in connection with their work described in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 below and to implement the programmatic relief provisions set forth in subparagraphs of Section 7 below.
The Experts shall invoice the Claims Administrator for their work performed on a monthly basis during the term of this Agreement and shall provide appropriate backup material and support for
any fees and costs subject to reimbursement from this fund up to a total amount of $275,000.00.00 of the funds allocated in this paragraph. Kodak shall not submit any such documentation until the second year of the term of this Agreement when it is anticipated that
9
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

recommendations of the Experts would begin to be implemented, but may do so on an earlier date if the expert recommendations are completed earlier and being implemented; and
(f) a total gross amount of $9,700,000.00 allocated to pay Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs, described in more detail in Section 4.2, below.
3.2 The Claims Administrator shall open and administer an interest bearing account (the "Settlement Fund Account") approved by Class Counsel with a unique Tax Payer Identification Number. The Settlement Fund described in Paragraph 1.21, above ($21,376,500.00), shall be made into this Settlement Fund Account. The Settlement Fund Account will constitute a qualified settlement fund pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section
1 .468B- 1. Upon the opening of this account, Kodak shall execute an election statement provided by the Claims Administrator which shall be affixed to the initial tax return of the Qualified Settlement Fund in order to establish the start date of the Qualified Settlement Fund. The
Qualified Settlement Fund will be created, managed and disbursed by the Claims Administrator
under the supervision of Class Counsel and Counsel for Kodak. The Claims Administrator shall be the only entity authorized to make withdrawals or payments from the Qualified Settlement Fund Account. Kodak will have no responsibilities or liabilities with respect to the administration of the Settlement Fund Account, including any distribution therefrom and the
reporting for such distribution. 3.3 Within five (5) business days after the Final Approval date or by July 1, 2009,
whichever is later, Kodak will wire the monies constituting the entire Settlement Fund ($21,376,500.00) to the Seulement Fund Account. Upon wiring the Settlement Fund amount, Kodak will have no further monetary obligation pursuant to this Settlement (with the exception of Kodak' s share of payroll taxes for the settlement payments) and Kodak shall have no further responsibility or obligation to make any additional payments pursuant to this Settlement including with respect to attorneys' fees and costs.
3.4 The Claims Administrator shall have the obligation to return the entire Qualified Seulement Fund (including all income andlor interest generated by the Qualified Settlement
10
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Fund) to Kodak within five (5) business days in the event of revocation of this Settlement, or in
the event that this Settlement Agreement is modified or reversed on appeal or is otherwise rendered null and void for any reason.
3.5 The Claims Administrator shall distribute the Class Settlement Fund pursuant to the provisions set forth below, and on the time schedule set forth herein and pursuant to the orders of the Court. IV. ATTORNEYS' FEES, LITIGATION COSTS, CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
COSTS, AND SERVICE PAYMENTS. 4.1 As set forth above, the Claims Administrator will pay, from the Settlement Fund: (1) each of the eleven Class Representatives (Courtney Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Victor Smith, Edna Williams, Gladys Aiston, Thomas Gainey, and Carrie Rice), and the estate of original named Plaintiff Olin Singletary, a Service Award in the gross amount of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000), provided the Court approves such payment, and provided they do not opt-out of the settlement; and (2) the ECJ Board Member (Mary Dukes), and each of the following thirteen Class Member Declarants (Andrew Gissendanner, Artiville Roberts, J.D. Bonham, Catherine Cliff; Abraham Cyrus, Thaddeus Drains, John Graham, Cleveland Brown, Raymond Carter, Garland Lockett, Sharon Magnolia, Debris Monroe, and Cornell Walker), a Service Award in the gross amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for their services on behalf of the class, provided the Court
approves such payment, and provided they do not opt-out of the settlement. The Claims
Administrator will pay the aforementioned Service Payments within one (1) business day after the Effective Date. Each individual receiving a Service Payment shall also be entitled to receive
his/her payment from the Settlement Fund pursuant to Paragraph 5.1 below, provided they do not opt-out of the settlement. The Qualified Settlement Fund shall issue a Form 1099 for each of
the Service Awards issued to the Class Representatives, ECJ Board Member and the Class Member Declarants.
11
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

4.2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), Class Counsel shall make a motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Class Counsel pursuant to the amount set forth in paragraph 3.1(fl. Kodak and its Counsel agree not to oppose Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, provided that the motion is in accordance with the provisions of this Settlement Agreement. Within one (1) business day after the Effective Däte, the Claims Administrator will pay Class Counsel attorneys' fees and costs of $9,700,000.00 from the Settlement Fund, provided these fees and costs have been approved by the Court. Prior to the payment of attorneys' fees and costs, Class Counsel will provide the Claims Administrator with tax-payer identification numbers for Class Counsel and executed Form W-9s. Form 1099s shall be provided to Class Counsel for the payments made to Class Counsel. Class Counsel agrees
that any allocation of fees between or among Class Counsel shall be the sole responsibility of
Class Counsel. 4.3 The Claims Administrator will pay to itself, from the Settlement Fund, a total
amount not to exceed $140,000.00, provided the Court approves this Seulement, to cover the reasonable costs of the Notice and of the administration of this seulement (the "Claims Administration costs"). In cormection with this proposed Seulement, Class Counsel has obtained a statement from the Claims Administrator that it can perform all of the duties required pursuant to this Agreement and in no event will the Claims Administrator charge an amount greater than $ 140,000.00. At least five (5) business days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, the Claims Administrator shall provide the Court and counsel for the Parties with a statement detailing its costs of administration. The Parties and the Claims Administrator agree to cooperate in the seulement administration process and to make all reasonable efforts to control and minimize the costs and expenses incurred in the administration of the seulement.
V. ALLOCATION OF INDIVIDUAL AWARDS AND ECJ PAYMENTS
5.1 As set forth above, within fifteen (15) days after the Effective Date, the Claims Administrator will pay the portion of the Seulement Fund allocated for individual Settlement Class Member monetary awards in the amount of $9,655,500.00 distributed as follows:
12
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

For each Settlement Class Member who has participated in TAP, he/she shall each receive $1,000.00. There are 1,180 Settlement Class Members in this category. The total amount allocated for this group is $1,180,000.00.
For each Settlement Class Member who only executed an ADR release and no TAP release, he/she shall each receive $2,250.00. There are 79 Settlement Class Members in this category. The total amount allocated for this group is $177,750.00.
From the remaining portion of the Seulement Fund allocated for
individual monetary awards, for each Seulement Class Member who has not participated in the Termination Allowance Plan ("TAP") or executed an ADR release, and who worked at least six (6) months or more for Kodak, he/she shall each receive a minimum of $3,000.00 plus an
amount proportionate to the number of weeks he/she worked for Defendant during the Relevant
Time Period. For each Class Member who did not execute either a TAP or ADR release, and who worked less than six (6) months or more for Kodak, he/she shall each receive $1,000.00. The Claims Administrator, subject to Court approval, shall be responsible for administering the
Settlement Awards to be paid to Seulement Class Members in accordance with the terms of this
Settlement. The Claims Administrator will receive or have access to personnel and payroll records from Kodak that will permit it to verifS' each Settlement Class Member's Settlement Award. There are 1,762 Seulement Class Members in this category. The total amount for this group is $8,297,750.00. The Class Member Seulement Award amounts are based on Kodak's personnel and payroll records. There is a rebuttable presumption that Kodak' s personnel and payroll records are correct, but Seulement Class Members will have the opportunity, should they disagree with Defendant' s records, to provide documentation regarding the Seulement Class
Members' employment dates. The Notice of Class Action Seulement sent to each Settlement Class Member will contain the number of weeks worked by, and an estimated Settlement Award for, the Seulement Class Member to whom it is sent. If there is documented contrary evidence,
the Claims Administrator shall evaluate and make a determination if the Class Member
Settlement Award should be adjusted based on all the information provided. Prior to rejecting a
13
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Settlement Class Member's documentation, the Claims Administrator shall provide notice of the issue to Class Counsel and Kodak's Counsel and at least seven (7) days for them to propose an amicable resolution of the issue through meet and confer. The Claims Administrator' s decision regarding the weeks worked will be final. The Claims Administrator will notify the Settlement Class Member, Class Counsel and Kodak's Counsel by mail of its decision. If the Claims Administrator determines that the Settlement Class Member' s documented estimate of weeks worked is correct, that change will be reflected in the Settlement Class Member's Settlement Award and all other Settlement awards shall be adjusted accordingly. Under no circumstances will the amount allocated for individual awards exceed the amount of $8,297,750.00. The Claims Administrator shall provide Class Counsel and Kodak's Counsel with its calculations of the number of weeks worked by, and the approximate Settlement Award to, each Settlement Class Member at least five (5) business days before the Settlement Awards are provided to the Settlement Class Members.
Each Settlement Class Member's status in one of the above three groupings will be determined as of December 3, 2008 and shall be the status used for purpose of determining individual monetary awards.
Deceased Settlement Class Members can participate in this Settlement
through representatives of their estate if appropriate documentation is provided, and Settlement payments may be made payable to the estate of the deceased Settlement Class Member, if the
appropriate documentation and authority is provided. The monies payable to Settlement Class Members and Class
Representatives, including the Service payments, will be allocated in the following manner: 30% of the payment each receives will be allocated in settlement of their claims for back pay or lost wages; 50% will be allocated in settlement of their claims for compensatory and punitive damages, including emotional distress; and 20% will be allocated as interest. The Claims Administrator will withhold from the back pay portion of each payment all applicable taxes under federal, state and/or local laws. The Claims Administrator will ensure that such monies
14
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

withheld are paid to the appropriate authorities for each Settlement Class Member and Class Representative and will issue IRS Forms W-2 and 1099 for the amounts reportable on each Form. Any amounts designated as interest shall not be subject to withholding and shall be
reported, if required, to the IRS on Form 1099-INT.
The Claims Administrator shall distribute individual payments under the terms of this Settlement to the Seulement Class Members no later than fifteen (15) days after the Effective Date. The face of each check sent to Settlement Class Members shall clearly state that the check must be cashed within one year. All payments distributed by the Claims Administrator must be accompanied by a cover letter stating words in bold to the effect that "the check must be
cashed within one year or it will become void." The back of each check will contain a legend
stating: "By negotiating this check and accepting payment I agree that I have waived and released the Released Parties from all Released Claims as defined in the Seulement Agreement and in the Notice in this matter." Settlement Class Members must sign the check in the space
following the legend, provided that the release of claims shall still be enforceable if any
Settlement Class Member is permitted to negotiate a check without a signature. Kodak shall be responsible for remitting to the tax authorities Defendant' s
share of payroll taxes for the seulement payments. Such payments shall not act in any way to reduce the Settlement Fund and will not be paid out of the Seulement Fund. Kodak shall pay these taxes after the Settlement Awards are mailed to Seulement Class Members. Pursuant to paragraph 5.1 (f), the individual Class Members' share of taxes withheld from the Seulement Awards will be remitted by the Claims Administrator from the Qualified Seulement Fund to the appropriate governmental authorities. Kodak shall cooperate with the Claims Administrator to provide payroll tax information to the Claims Administrator as shall be necessary to accomplish the income and employment tax withholding on the wage portion of each Seulement Award, and the Form 1099 reporting for the non-wage portion of each Seulement Award.
5.2 In accordance with Exhibit B, the Claims Administrator will also distribute from the Seulement Fund pursuant to paragraph 3.1(d) individual payments of no more than $500.00
15
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

to each ECJ member set forth in Exhibit B who is a current or former employee of Kodak for reimbursement of their cost and time in participating in ECJ. The Claims Administrator shall
verify that each individual is or was a Kodak employee. The total amount allocated for ECJ payments shall not exceed $458,000.00. The Claims Administrator will issue to each ECJ Member receiving a payment an IRS Form 1099 to reflect the amount paid.
5.3 Payments made under this Agreement are not intended to and will not: (1) form the basis for additional contributions to, benefits under, or any other monetary entitlement under; (2) count as earnings or compensation with respect to; or (3) be considered to apply to, or be applied for purposes of; Defendant's bonus, executive compensation, pension, any 401(k) and/or other retirement plans or similar programs Defendant retains the right, if necessary, to modify
the language of its benefit plans and pension, bonus and other programs, if necessary, to make
clear that any amounts paid pursuant to this Agreement are not for hours worked, hours paid or any similar measuring term as defined by any plans and programs for purposes of eligibility, vesting, benefit accrual or any other purpose.
TERM OF TillS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
6.1 The equitable provisions in this Settlement Agreement are effective immediately upon the Effective Date, as defined in Paragraph 1.13, above.
6.2 Except as otherwise provided herein, the equitable provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of four (4) years from the Effective Date.
PROGRAMMATIC RELIEF 7.1 Continued Commitment to Non-Discrimination. Kodak shall maintain and
enforce its existing non-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies designed to assure equal employment opportunity for its employees.
(a) In accordance with the above-referenced non-discrimination policies and its obligations under state and federal law, Kodak shall continue to enforce its policy of not
knowingly maintaining or enacting any policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of
16
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

unlawfully discriminating against any Settlement Class Member or other African American employee on the basis of race.
In accordance with the above-referenced anti-retaliation policies and its obligations under state and federal law, Kodak shall not retaliate against any Settlement Class Member or other African American employee because he or she: (I) complained of or opposed
discrimination on the basis of race at Kodak; (2) testified, furnished information or participated
in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing, whether in connection with this lawsuit or any other
complaint of racial discrimination at Kodak that may be asserted in the future; or (3) sought
and/or received monetary and/or non-monetary relief pursuant to this Settlement. In accordance with its existing non-discrimination and anti-retaliation
policies and its obligations under state and federal law, Kodak shall make available to African
American employees the same opportunities and terms and conditions of employment as Kodak
affords similarly situated white employees.
7.2 Industrial Psychologist and Policy Review. In further consideration for the Class Representatives' execution of this Agreement, and their agreement to be bound by its terms, and the undertakings of the Class Representatives as set forth herein, and Kodak's interest in continuously improving its policies and procedures, within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date, Kodak will identi1', with the approval of Class Counsel (who shall first review the qualifications of this individual, and who agrees not to unreasonably withhold or delay consent),
and thereafter employ an Industrial Psychologist to assist it in reviewing, developing, and recommending policies and practices designed to reinforce Kodak's equal opportunity employment policies and practices with regard to compensation, performance evaluations, promotions, and job assignments.
(a) Upon completion of his/her work and no later than eighteen months after the Effective Date, a summary of the Recommendations of the Industrial Psychologist and any changes implemented by Kodak as a result of the Industrial Psychologist's analysis shall be
shared with the External Diversity Advisory Panel, Class Counsel and Class Representatives.
17
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

The recommendations of the Industrial Psychologist, all summaries of any
such recommendations, any decisions by Kodak with respect to the recommendations, and any changes implemented by Kodak as a result of the recommendations shall be confidential.
Consistent with the principles and purposes of this Agreement, Kodak has an obligation to consider, in good faith, implementing the recommendations ofthe Industrial
Psychologist. Kodak will have the right to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the
recommendations of the Industrial Psychologist. If Kodak decides not to implement one or more of the recommendations of the Industrial Psychologist, Kodak shall provide Class Counsel a written statement explaining why implementation of the recommendation(s) would not be in
Kodak' s best interest. Kodak may propose an alternative to the rejected recommendation(s) that Kodak believes would serve the same objective as the rejected recommendation, and is
consistent with the purposes of this Settlement Agreement. If Class Counsel disagrees with
Kodak's decision not to implement a recommendation from the Industrial Psychologist, Class Counsel may suggest an alternative and the parties shall meet and confer in a good faith effort to consider the recommendation andlor alternatives.
Expert Access to Information. Kodak agrees that subject to an
appropriate Confidentiality Agreement, Kodak will provide the selected Industrial Psychologist
with reasonable access to all documents, data and other necessary sources of information, including interviews of company personnel, deemed necessary to fulfill his/her responsibilities as
stated in this Agreement.
7.3 Annual Internal Monitoring Process. In further consideration for the Class Representatives' execution of this Agreement, and their agreement to be bound by its terms, and the undertakings of the Class Representatives as set forth herein, and Kodak's interest in
continuously improving its policies and procedures, (i) a Labor Economist and Statistician nominated by Kodak, and (ii) a Labor Economist and Statistician nominated by Class
Representatives, will study existing disparate impact analyses of practices relating to annual
evaluations, pay and promotion decisions and will make recommendations as to any appropriate
18
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

changes to the monitoring and disparate impact analyses. Kodak intends to nominate and retain Legal Economics Consulting Group, in particular, Dr. Bernie Siskin, Labor Economist and Statistician, to assist in this process (and Plaintiffs do not object to this nomination). Class Representatives intend to nominate Dr. Janice Madden, Labor Economist and Statistician, to assist in this process (and Kodak does not object to this nomination). The Labor Economists and Statisticians will be retained by Kodak within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date.
Upon completion of his/her work and no later than eighteen months after the Effective Date, a summary of the Recommendations of the Labor Economists and Statisticians and any changes implemented by Kodak as a result of the their analyses shall be shared with the External Diversity Advisory Panel, Class Counsel and Class Representatives.
The recommendations of the Labor Economists and Statisticians, all summaries of any such recommendations, any decisions by Kodak with respect to the recommendations, and any changes implemented by Kodak as a result of the recommendations
shall be confidential.
Consistent with the principles and purposes of this Agreement, Kodak has an obligation to consider, in good faith, implementing the recommendations of the Labor
Economists/Statisticians. Kodak will have the right to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the
recommendations of the Labor Economists and Statisticians. If Kodak decides not to implement on or more of the recommendations of the Labor Economists and StatÍsticians, Kodak shall provide Class Counsel a written statement explaining why implementation of the
recommendation(s) would not be in Kodak's best interest. Kodak may propose an alternative to the rejected recommendation(s) that Kodak believes would serve the same objective as the
rejected recommendation, and is consistent with the purposes of this Settlement Agreement. If
Class Counsel disagrees with Kodak' s decision not to implement a recommendation from the Labor Economist/Statistician, Class Counsel may suggest an alternative and the parties shall meet and confer in a good faith effort to consider the recommendation and/or alternatives.
19
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

(d) Expert Access to Information. Kodak agrees that subject to an appropriate Confidentiality Agreement, Kodak will provide the selected Labor Economists and Statisticians with reasonable access to all documents, data and other necessary sources of information, including interviews of company personnel, deemed necessary to fulfill their responsibilities as stated in this Agreement
7.4 Employee and Supervisor EOE and Diversity Training. Kodak is committed to continuing to provide the best in class EOE and Diversity training to all of its supervisors. In further consideration of this settlement and in the spirit of continuous improvement, Kodak
agrees to expand and enhance its existing training programs to place greater emphasis on Kodak's procedures for identifying and ensuring compliance with its EOE policies and to update
and enhance its existing training scenarios relating to what constitutes a violation of the EOE policies and the procedures for complaining about such violations. The goal of these
enhancements is to continue to ensure that all supervisors understand that it is their responsibility and obligation to report and respond to any alleged violations of Kodak's EOE policies.
In conjunction with recommendations from the Industrial Psychologist referenced above, Kodak will develop further enhancements to its EOE and Diversity training, which may include conducting new training sessions designed to further enhance the effectiveness of Kodak' s revised training programs discussed above.
Within one year of the Effective Date, Kodak shall provide Class Counsel with a written summary of its effort to expand and enhance its existing training programs.
7.5 Complaint Procedures and Complaint Tracking. Kodak shall maintain and enforce its EOE and complaint procedures for violations of EOE policies. As noted above, Kodak will enhance its existing EOE training to place even greater emphasis on its complaint procedures and every employee's obligation to identify potential violations of the Kodak's EOE policies by utilizing the complaint procedures.
7.6 In addition, Kodak will develop a database or spreadsheet to track all complaints of discrimination at Kodak and the resolution/status of such complaints. This tracking process
20
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

will cover all complaints in the United States of any form of alleged discrimination. Specifically, within ninety (90) days of the Final Approval Date, Kodak shall prepare a complaint tracking spreadsheet or database recording information regarding all complaints in the United States of alleged discrimination on the basis of race or retaliation. Pertinent information shall include at a minimum the following: (1) the name, job classification, and work location of the complainant(s); and (2) the results of the investigation undertaken in response to such
complaint, including the corrective action imposed, if any, and the name of any managers andlor
other employees disciplined as a result of the complaint. The goal of the spreadsheet or database is to provide Kodak in one document or database a complete list of complaints and information on Kodak's response. All of the information contained in the database and tracking spreadsheet
is confidential and proprietary to Kodak 7.7 Seulement Compliance Panel. Within one month of the Approval Date, Kodak
shall empower its External Diversity Advisory Panel to serve as the compliance panel for this Settlement. For this purpose only, the External Diversity Advisory Panel shall include two
additional members designated by the ECJ subject to the approval of Kodak (which shall not be
unreasonably delayed or withheld). The ECJ members shall only participate on the External Diversity Panel for the purpose of reviewing and monitoring compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The External Diversity Advisory Panel and the designated ECJ members will meet (in person or via teleconference subject to cost constraints) at least bi-annually (i.e.,
twice per year), at approximately six month intervals), during the term of this Agreement, and will review progress reports on the status of implementing this Settlement. During Year 1 of this
Agreement, the External Diversity Advisory Panel and the designated ECJ members will meet three times. The ECJ members shall not otherwise participate in the External Diversity Panel or its meetings on topics other than compliance with this Settlement Agreement. Subject to the
provisions ofthis Settlement Agreement, all information shared with the External Diversity Panel relating to the Settlement shall be treated as Confidential and shall not be shared outside of
21
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

that group, except that the ECJ participants may report back to ECJ and Class Counsel solely about compliance with the terms of the settlement.
7.8 Kodak shall use its best efforts to ensure that the External Diversity Advisory
Panel is frilly aware of its responsibilities and that the members of the External Diversity
Advisory Panel are effective in carrying out their duties and responsibilities. 7.9 Class Counsel will receive a copy of all correspondence provided to the External
Diversity Advisory Panel concerning the provisions of this Settlement Agreement, and shall receive a copy of all correspondence from the External Diversity Advisory Panel concerning this
settlement. 7.10 The External Diversity Advisory Panel shall use their best efforts to ensure
Kodak's implementation of and compliance with the provisions of this Settlement. Kodak shall provide such support staff and other resources as may be reasonably necessary to discharge
Kodak's obligations under this Seulement Agreement. 7.11 Implementation and Conununication of Commitment to Diversity, Equal
Employment Opportunity. No later than thirty (30) days after the Final Approval date, Kodak shall provide to each if its current employees in the United States a written communication that reflects the Company's commitment to diversity, and equal employment opportunity. At least once aimually thereafter during the term of this Agreement, Kodak shall provide a similar communication to each of its then current employees in the United States. The communications will be signed and issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Kodak.
7.12 Reporting. For the temi of this Settlement Agreement, Kodak shall provide an annual report to Class Counsel relating to its compliance with the terms of this Seulement. VIII NOTICE TO TIlE SETTLEMENT CLASS
8.1 Within ten (10) business days after the Preliminary Approval Date, Defendant shall provide to the Claims Administrator a list of all Proposed Class Members, including last known address and telephone number, social security number and employee ID number. Defendant agrees to provide this information in a format reasonably acceptable to the Claims
22
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Administrator. The Claims Administrator will maintain this list in the strictest confidence and shall not disclose it to anyone except Class Counsel, who may use it only for purposes of administering this Settlement.
8.2 A Notice of Class Action Settlement (the "Notice") in substantively the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, and as approved by the Court, shall be sent by the Claims Administrator to Proposed Class Members, by United States first class mail, postage prepaid, within ten (10) business days after the date that Defendant provides the list of all Proposed Class
Members described in Paragraph 8.1. 8.3 In order to provide the best notice practicable, the Claims Administrator will do
the following before mailing the Notice: (1) mn the list of all Proposed Class Members through the United States Postal Service's National Change of Address database ("NCOA"); and (2)
perform address searches using public and proprietary electronic resources which collect their data from various sources such as utility records, property tax records, motor vehicle registration records (where allowed) and credit bureaus.
8.4 If envelopes from the mailing of the Notice are returned with forwarding addresses, the Claims Administrator will re-mail the Notice of Class Action Settlement to the
new address within three (3) business days. 8.5 Class Counsel shall provide the Court, at least five (5) calendar days prior to the
final fairness hearing, a declaration by the Claims Administrator of due diligence and proof of mailing with regard to the mailing of the Notice of Class Action Settlement to Proposed Class
Members.
8.6 In the event that a Notice of Class Action Settlement is returned to the Claims Administrator by the United States Postal Service because the address of the recipient is no longer valid, i.e., the envelope is marked "Return to Sender," the Claims Administrator shall perform a standard skip trace in an effort to attempt to ascertain the current address of the particular Proposed Class Member in question and, if such an address is ascertained, the Claims Administrator will re-send the Notice within three (3) business days of receiving the newly
23
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

ascertained address; if no updated address is obtained for that Proposed Class Member, the
Notice of Class Action Settlement shall be sent again to the Proposed Class Member's last known address. In either event, the Notice of Class Action Settlement shall be deemed received once it is mailed for the second time.
8.7 With respect to envelopes marked "Return to Sender," the Claims Administrator may also call any identified last-known telephone numbers (and telephone numbers updated through public and proprietary databases) of Proposed Class Members to obtain their current addresses.
8.8 The Claims Administrator shall provide to Counsel for Kodak and Class Counsel, at least ten (10) business days prior to the final fairness hearing, a list of Settlement Class Members to whom notices were returned as undeliverable and for whom efforts to obtain an alternative address failed. IX. RELEASES
9.1 Upon the negotiation of a settlement check, or upon the Effective Date whether or not a settlement check has been negotiated, whichever is earlier, each member of the Settlement Class shall be deemed to, and shall have, released and discharged all Released Parties with
respect to all Released Claims. 9.2 Every Settlement Class Member, as defined above, shall be deemed to and shall
have knowingly and voluntarily waived, released, discharged and dismissed the Released
Claims, with full knowledge of any and all rights they may have, and they hereby assume the risk of any mistake in fact in connection with the true facts involved, or with regard to any facts
which are now unknown to them. 9.3 The Parties and Seulement Class Members acknowledge that the covenants and
promises made by Kodak herein constitute adequate consideration in exchange for the Released Claims as defined in Paragraph 1.17 above.
24 PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

9.4 Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to bar any claims of Settlement Class Members or the Class Representatives based on or arising out of events occurring after the date of the Final Approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement. X. REOUESTS FOR EXCLUSION. OBJECTIONS, AND KODAK'S RIGHT TO
WITHDRAW 10.1 Arty person who does not wish to participate in the settlement, i.e., who wants to opt-out of the settlement, may file a timely request for exclusion pursuant to the provisions set forth in the Notice of Class Action Settlement. Such written request for exclusion must contain the name, address and telephone number of the person requesting exclusion. The opt-out must be personally signed by the Proposed Class Member who seeks to opt out. No opt-out request may be made on behalf of a group of Proposed Class Members. The request for exclusion must contain the statements set forth in the Notice of Class Action Settlement, and must be sent by
mail or courier to the Claims Administrator so that it is actually postmarked (or received, if by
courier) within thirty-five (35) days after it was mailed by the Claims Administrator. The postmark date of the mailing envelope shall be the exclusive means used to determine whether a request for exclusion (opt-out) has been timely submitted. Any person who timely submits such a request for exclusion shall be barred from participation in the settlement, and shall receive no benefit from the settlement.
10.2 The Notice of Class Action Settlement shall provide that those members of the Proposed Class who wish to object to the Settlement must mail or send by courier to the Claims Administrator their written statement of objection so that it is actually postmarked (or received, if by courier) within thirty-five (35) days after it was mailed by the Claims Administrator. The postmark date of the mailing shall be the exclusive means for determining that a Notice of Objection is timely. The Notice of Objection must state the basis for the objection. Members of the Proposed Class who fail to make objections in the maimer specified above shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall be foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or otherwise) to the Settlement Agreement.
25 PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

10.3 At no time shall any of the Parties or their counsel seek to solicit or otherwise encourage members of the Proposed Class to submit written objections to the seulement or appeal from the Final Approval Order for this Settlement.
10.4 If any ofthe Class Representatives submits a timely and complete request for
exclusion, Kodak shall have the absolute right, in its sole discretion and notwithstanding any
other provisions of this Agreement, but subject to all the provisions and time limits of this
section, to withdraw in writing from this Agreement, or to modify this Agreement through further negotiations with Class Counsel. If Kodak does withdraw in conformity with the provisions and time limits of this section, the Agreement will be null and void for all purposes and may not be used or introduced in further litigation except to determine whether Kodak is entitled to withdraw from the Agreement and has validly done so. Kodak shall have thirty (30) calendar days after the expiration of all Proposed Class Members' deadlines in Paragraph 10.1 above to withdraw from (or modify through negotiation) this Agreement on the basis that a Class Representative has submitted a timely and complete request for exclusion.
10.5 In addition, if a total of twenty (20) or more Proposed Class Members submit
timely and complete requests for exclusion, Kodak shall have the absolute right, in its sole
discretion and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, but subject to all the provisions and time limits of this section, to withdraw in writing from this Agreement, or to modify this Agreement through further negotiations with Class Counsel. If Kodak does withdraw in conformity with the provisions and time limits of this section, the Agreement will be null and void for all purposes and may not be used or introduced in further litigation except to determine whether Kodak is entitled to withdraw from the Agreement and has validly done so.
10.6 The Claims Administrator shall each calendar week notify counsel for Kodak and
Class Counsel by fax or email of the number of individuals who have to that date submitted timely and complete requests for exclusion and whether any of them are Class Representatives, and at the same time shall send to said counsel by fax, email or by overnight delivery copies of
all the timely and complete requests for exclusion which Class Counsel has received. Kodak
26
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

shall have thirty (30) days after the expiration of all Proposed Class Members' deadlines in
Paragraph 10.1 above to withdraw from (or modify through negotiation) this Agreement on the
basis that a total of twenty (20) or more Proposed Class Members have submitted timely and
complete requests for exclusion.
XI. DUTIES OF THE PARTIES PRIOR TO COURT APPROVAL 11.1 Promptly upon execution of this Agreement, but by no later than ten (10) business
days thereafter, the Parties shall apply to the Court for the entry of an order (the "Preliminary
Approval Order"):
Scheduling a fairness hearing as soon as practicable on the question of whether the proposed settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate as to the members of the class;
Approving as to form and content the proposed Notice of Class Action
Settlement;
(e) Directing the mailing of the Notice by first class mail to the Proposed
Class Members; Preliminarily approving the Agreement, as well as the payment of
attorneys' fees, costs, and Service Payments set forth in this Agreement; and
Certi'ing the Settlement Class. 11.2 In moving for the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Counsel will
submit to the Court for its approval this Settlement Agreement and attachments, and supporting papers, which shall set forth the terms of this settlement and will include proposed forms of all notices and other documents as attached hereto necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement.
11.3 Because CAFA was not enacted until after the Davis et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04-CV-06098, lawsuit was filed, it is not applicable to the Davis lawsuit. The Aiston et. al y.
Eastman Kodak Co., 07-CV-6512, lawsuit was filed in state court and the Plaintiffs contend only involved New York state law claims. Although this matter was removed to federal court, the
27
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

magistrate judge issued a recommendation that the Aiston matter be remanded to state court because it involved state law claims. Accordingly, while the parties do not believe that CAFA notices are required for the Aiston matter, they have agreed to send CAFA notices for the Aiston matter within ten (10) days of filing of this Agreement.
11.4 In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this settlement Agreement, unless otherwise stated, such computation or calculation shall be made consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a). XII. DUTIES OF THE PARTIES FOLLOWING FINAL COURT APPROVAL
12.1 In connection with the final approval by the Court of the Agreement, Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendant will submit a proposed final order and judgment.
(a) Granting final approval to the Agreement, adjudging the terms thereof to be fair, reasonable and adequate, and directing consummation of its terms and provisions;
(b) Dismissing the Civil Actions with prejudice and permanently barring all members of the Settlement Class including the Class Representatives from prosecuting against
any Released Parties any of the Released Claims; and (c) Retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms ofthe Agreement.
12.2 In connection with the final approval by the Court of the Agreement, Kodak
agrees that:
Kodak will not retaliate in any way against any of the Class Representatives or Settlement Class Members who participated in this action;
within 60 days after the Effective Date, Kodak will distribute a written statement reiterating its commitment to and support of its EOE policies;
(e) within 365 days after the Effective Date, Kodak will provide training to its managers and supervisors about its Equal Opportunity Employment and harassment-free workplace policies;
(d) Kodak's internal complaint procedure will continue to provide for the prompt and hill investigations of any complaints of employment discrimination; and
28
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

(e) Kodak will continue to use its best efforts to ensure that its performance appraisal, compensation, promotion and layoff practices are applied in a non-discriminatory fashion.
12.3 All materials containing Confidential Information pursuant to the Stipulation and
Order of Confidentiality entered in Davis et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04-CV-06098 shall be returned to the producing party or destroyed by the party to whom those materials were produced
within ninety days after the Effective Date, with the exception that the parties may retain copies of their work product; copies of all filed documents (whether or not filed under seal or submitted to the court without being officially filed); and materials necessary to oversee compliance with this Agreement, except that all documents and materials designated Highly Confidential shall be returned to Kodak or Kodak's counsel, who shall retain and maintain that information in the form in which it is returned during the term of this Settlement Agreement. XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
13.1 Except as otherwise set forth herein, all disputes concerning compliance with the
terms of this Settlement Agreement or payment ofthe monies pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall be resolved pursuant to the following provisions.
13.2 If the Named Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel, Kodak, or
Kodak's Counsel at any time believe that the other party has breached the Settlement Agreement,
that party shall notif5r the other party in writing of the alleged violation. 13.3 Upon receiving notice of the alleged violation or dispute, the responding party
shall have ten (10) business days to correct the alleged violation and/or respond to the initiating party with the reasons why the party disputes all or part of the allegation.
t 3.4 If the response does not address the alleged violation to the initiating party's
satisfaction, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith for up to ten (10) business days to resolve their differences.
13.5 If Class Counsel and Kodak are unable to resolve their differences after ten (10)
business days, either party may file an appropriate motion for enforcement with the Court. The
29
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

briefing of such motion should be in letter brief form and shall not exceed five (5) single-spaced
pages (excluding exhibits). PARTIES' AUTHORITY 14.1 The signatories hereby represent that they are frilly authorized to enter into this
Agreement and to bind the Parties and the Seulement Class Members to the terms and conditions hereof
14.2 All of the Parties acknowledge that through this Settlement Agreement and its attachments, they and the Seulement Class Members are being advised that they may consult an attorney regarding their participation in this Agreement, and the Parties acknowledge that they in fact have been represented by competent, experienced counsel throughout all negotiations which preceded the execution of this Agreement, and this Agreement is made with the consent and advice of counsel who have jointly prepared this Agreement.
14.3 All of the Parties and Seulement Class Members acknowledge that they are participating voluntarily and knowingly in exchange for the consideration described herein. The Parties and Seulement Class Members further acknowledge that they were provided with a reasonable period of time within which to consider this Agreement.
MUTUAL FULL COOPERATION 15.1 The Parties agree to use their best efforts and to fully cooperate with each other to accomplish the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to, execution of such documents and to take such other action as may reasonably be necessary to implement and effectuate the terms of this Agreement. NOTICES 16.1 Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, all notices, demands or other communications given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given as of the third business day after mailing by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:
30 PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

To the Class Representatives or to any Settlement Class member: BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. Shanon Carson, Esq. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
To the Defendant: MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Michael S. Burkhardt, Esq. 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
MODIFICATION 17.1 This Agreement and its attachments may not be changed, altered, or modified, except in writing and signed by the Parties hereto, and approved by the Court. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 18.1 This Agreement and its attachments constitute the entire agreement between the Parties and Settlement Class Members concerning the subject matter hereof No extrinsic oral or written representations or terms shall modify, vary or contradict the terms of this Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and any other Settlement-related document, the Parties and Settlement Class Members intend that this Agreement shall be controlling. CHOICE OF LAW/JURISDICTION 19.1 This Agreement shall be subject to, governed by, construed, enforced, and administered in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, both in its procedural and substantive aspects, and shall be subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning and intent,, and not strictly for or against any party, regardless of who drafted or who was principally responsible for drafting this Agreement or any specific term or condition thereof
31
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

COUNTERPARTS 20.1 This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and when each party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed counterparts, shall constitute one Agreement, which shall be binding upon and effective as to all Parties and Settlement Class Members. PUBLIC COMMENT 21.1 Other than necessary disclosures made to the Court, the content of the Parties' settlement negotiations and all related information shall be held confidential by Kodak, Counsel for Kodak, Class Counsel and the Class Representatives, and shall not be disclosed to any third parties, subject to the following exceptions: (a) Class Counsel and the Class Representatives may communicate with Settlement Class Members for purposes of implementing, administering and enforcing the Settlement as provide herein, and Class Counsel may respond to inquiries they respectively receive from Settlement Class Members; (b) Kodak may communicate with those persons, including Kodak employees, necessary for the administration, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement, and may inform its employees of the Settlement; (c) Class Counsel may issue the statement attached as Exhibit D on their website, but agree that they will not issue a press release or solicit media inquiries, and in response to any inquiries from the media or third parties, Class Counsel and Class Representatives agree that they will only refer to the statement attached in Exhibit D; and (d) Class Counsel may cite to the public record in the course of their work but information previously designated as Confidential pursuant to the parties' Stipulation and Order of Confidentiality dated April 24, 2006 shall remain confidential. Class Counsel agrees to use the contact information for Settlement Class Members that is provided to it by the Claims Administrator and Counsel for Kodak solely for purposes of communicating regarding this action and implementing this Agreement and for no other purpose, at any time, or for any reason.
32
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

XXII. VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS STAYED 22.1 The Parties agree to hold all proceedings in the Civil Actions, except such
proceedings as may be necessary to implement and complete the Seulement Agreement, in abeyance pending the Final Fairness Hearing to be conducted by the Court. XXIII DEFENSE FEES AND COSTS
23.1 All of Kodak's own attorneys' fees and legal costs and expenses incurred in the Civil Actions shall be borne by Kodak from Kodak's separate funds and not from the Settlement
Fund.
XXIV. VOIDING THE AGREEMENT 24.1 In the event this Agreement, or any amended version agreed upon by the Parties,
does not obtain judicial approval for any reason, this Agreement shall be null and void in its entirety, unless expressly agreed in writing by all Parties. lii the event this Agreement becomes null and void for any reason, Kodak, Counsel for Kodak, the Class Representatives, and Class Counsel agree that they shall from that date forward keep strictly confidential the terms of the
Agreement, the existence of the Agreement, any information concerning the Agreement, or any of the discussions and or negotiations regarding the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Agreement as of the
date indicated below:
33
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Dated: June 2, 2009

BER '..JJ2J'.. OC 1V1

fAlifJlTLTiCt, Dr .'.r

By:
S anon Carsjít'
1622 Locust S 'et
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-4656
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604

Class Counsel:

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. William T Coleman III Shanon J. Carson 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP Bruce E. Gerstein Jan Bartelli 1501 Broadway, Suite 1416 New York, NY 10036

THE CHAVERS LAW FIRM, P.C. Claybome E. Chavers 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

Counsel for Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members

34 PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Dated: June 2, 2009

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
By: ichae S. Burkhardt, Esq.
1701 Market St Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel.: (215)-963-5130 Fax: (215)-963-5001
NIXON PEABODY LLP Robert B. Calihan 1100 Clinton Square Rochester, NY 14603-1792 (585) 263-1600 (585) 263-1600 (fax)
Counsel for Defendant Eastman Kodak Company

35
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

EXHIBIT A
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Aaron Abrahams Abram Adair Adams Adams Adams Adams Adams Adams Adebekun Adell Adelt Adjei-Mensah Aduwa-Ero Afolabi Ainsworth Ajavon Ajewole Akbar Akinola Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexandre Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Alleyne Allison Allison Allums Alston Alston Altamirano

First Name Wiley Bernice
Rosa Maurice Antonio Diane Elaine Keith Mary Robert Denn Arthur Lashawn Joseph Lucille Adedeji Norman Joe Isaac Maatra
M
Andrea Joyce Keith Lawrence Linda Michelle Ritá Timothy Wayne Jean Annette Delaina Donan Duanise Flovea Franklin Jennifer Luther Terry Thelma Tremaine Trenton William Carolyn Kimberly Queenie Kimberly Gladys Willie Jesse

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Altidor Altidor
Alves Amos Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson Andrews Andrews Andrews Andrews Andrews Andrews Andrews Anthony Appleberry Archer Arline Armstead Armstrong Armstrong Armstrong Armstrong Armstrong Armstrong Armstrong Armstrong Arter Arterberry Asbie Aserekama Ashford Ashford Augustine Augustus Austin Austin Avant Avery

First Name Delano
Raphael Regina Tammy Alfred Alfred Barbara David Gerald Irene Joe Linda Norma Robin Roydale Terrance William Willie Zakiyyah Aisha Carol Dorothy Harry Margie Michael Wally Veronica Debra Collin Purvis Yvonne Constance
Dymon
Doris Katrina Keith Maurice Moses Shirley Aaron Torence Eddie Adugbire Perry William Sheila Michael Arthur Clifton Samuel Royal

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Awopetu Ayoung Azogi Baccas Baggling Bailey Bailey Bailey Baker Baker Baker Baker Baker Baker Baker Baker Baldwin Balkum Balkum Ballou Banahene Banks Banks Banks Banks Banks-Jeifries Baptiste Barber Barber Barclay Barfield Bandeaux Barksdale Barley Barley Barley Barner Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnes Barnett Barnett Barr Barrett

First Name
Julieannah David lbrahim Cheree Barbara Bobby Denham Neville Bridgette Davita Kelvin Larry Lisa Marlin Mary Richard Billie David Jeannette Niticia Jude Anthony Benjamin Davis Kenney Pamela Kenny Arthur Jean Dannell Charles Edward Derrek Jimmy Mark Richard Peggie Dion Dynastia Earnest Gayle
L
Richard Ricky Shirley Theree Todd Clifford Pat Warren Antoinette

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Barrett Barrett Barrett Barrett Barron Barron Barthelemy Baffles
BaU s Baxter Baxter Beal Bean Be-Ans Be-Ans Beard Beaty Beaty Beaty Beaty Beaty-Travis Beckford
Becklord Beckford Beckley Becoats Becoats Bedgood Bell Bell Bell
Bell
Bell Bell Bellamy Bellamy Belle Bellis Beloch Beloch Beloch Benard Benjamin Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennour

First Name
Charnel Gail Paul Thomas Gregory Janet Placius James Clay David Kenneth Sherry Stephen Donald Verleria Suella Cleodis Gerleen Jimmie Renard Vera Gloria Kevin Kimberley Howard Marshall Shantanette Larry Eric Ethel Josephine Kenneth Natasha Oscar Lyda Marcus Michael James Alesia Flossie Stanley Oscar Lorene Charlie Inez Kenneth Matthew Preston Roy Waldense Malika

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Bentley Benton Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernhard Berrouet Berry Berry Bertram Bethel Bethune Bevans Bice Billings Billings Bilson Bitek Black Black Blackman Blackmon Blackman Blackmon Blackwell Blackwell Blackwood Blair Blake Blake Blake Blake Blake Blake Blake-Dunagan Blanding Blocker Blue Blue Blue Blythers Boateng Boatswain Bogan Bogmis Bohler Bohler Boler BoIler Bonds

First Name
Canette Dale Antonia Lakrecia Michael Shawn Bridgett Carolle James Teresha Dudley Ronald Stanley Gene Betty Larry Sarah Carole Alfred Linda Robert Sonia Earl Lazaro Tracy Emory Melvin Virginia Albert Kathleen Leon Nathaniel Nicole Sarah Teresa Debris Patricia Ronald Darrick J Ferrel Vasttee Elizabeth Michael Mlingi James Josue Albert Chris Robyn Alcindor Anthony

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Bonham Bonham Booker Boone Boothe Bostic Bostic Bostick Boswell Boume Bowers Bowick Bowick Bowks
Boyd Bracey Bradford Bradford Bradford Bradley Bradley Bradley Bradley Bradshaw Bradshaw Branch Brantley Brantley Braswell Brazwell Breedlove Breedlove Breeze Brenson Brenson Brickhouse Bridgers Bridges Bridges-Jackson Brinson Brinson Brinson-Moss Britton Britton Broadaway Broadnax Brock Brock Bromell Brooken Brooks

First Name Almeater
J
Eric William Leo Antionette Carroll Vernon Annelle Allison Helen Ronada Thomas Roland Jessie Wyatt Ann Carlos Sabrina Eugene Joyce Ray Tenia Eric Villa Phillip Hermon Teddie Paul Margaret Lenward Vernell Pamela Charles Shemica Melissa James Eddie Vivian Mary MaRie Darthenia Joseph Minnie Keisha Tyrone Franklin Roger Charlene Linda Arthur

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Brooks Brooks Brooks Brooks Brooks Brooks Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown
Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown-Cosby Broyld Broyld Brundidge Bruner Brunskill Brunson

First Name
Charles Leslie Louie Rick Stephen W Angela Chauntanette Christopher Clemont Cleveland Deon Desmond Eddie Eureka Floyd Frank Franklin Furman Gerald Henry Jeffrey Joseph Joy Kevin Kevin Kirkland Lakenisha Lee Leroy Loretta Matthew Nita Paula Reuben Rosa Roy Samuel Shatara Sheryl Terry Tommy William Willie Lorran Dennis Gary Virginia Willie Gwendolyn Evette

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Brunson Brunson Brunson
Bryan Bryant Bryant Bryant Bryant Bryant Bryant Bryant Bryant Buckles Buckner Buford Buie Buie Bullock Buntley Burch Burgess Burk Burk Burke Burnett Burnice Sumo Burns Burrell Burrell Burrell Burns Burns Burroughs Burroughs Burrows Burton Burton Bush Bush Bush Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Buffs Buffs Byers Bynoe

First Name Frank
Patricia Peggy Trevor David Gregg Jerry Michele Naomi Parris Rochelle Rodney Bryan Valarie Harold Michael Patricia Sandra Malissa Cassandria Ann Errol Selvin H Joe Jacquline Alfred Victor David Diane Larry Robert Stacy Kathy Kenny Levern Kevin Linda Candace Carrie Tracy Bennie Michelle Tyrone Victoria Wayne William Cleo Morgan Carmen Glisi

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Bynoe Byrd Byrd
Byrd Caesar Caesar Cage Caldwell Calhoun Calhoun Callier Calloway Calloway Calloway Calloway Cameron Cameron Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Canady Cannon Capestany Caples Carbonell Cardenas Carnes-James Carpenter Carr Carroll Carson Carswell Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter

First Name
Ralph Alice Lashasha William Dwight Jacqueline Connie Dionne James Susie Hawkins Aundre Kim Patricia Vera Elsie Warren Carl Derrick Lucien Sherriet Tamatha Robert Ray Oliver Ivan Jose Elaine Kevin Candis Adelaide Sherman Terrelle Brian Cathernell Darryl Elaine Gregory Isaiah Joyce Karl Larry Laverne Lenora Linda Lois Maggie Patricia Raymond Robert Robert

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Cash Cashe Cason Cathey Cathey Chambers Chambers Champion Chandler Chandler Chandler Chapman Chappell Chargo Charleston Charleston Chatman Chatman Chatman Che-Mponda Cherry Chess Chess Chestnut Chin Chilly Choice Christian Christie Clancy Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark-Chambers Clarkson Clarkson

First Name
Shondell Stephanié Tyra Veronica Willie Mario Marilyn Willie Jeroans Rose Emma Juanita Dionne Johnny Joseph Kenneth Christopher Otis Carl Cordell Dawn Candace Daniel William Aleck Willard Antonius Asilee Daisy Isoda Alton Markita Charley Godfrey Troy Clifford David Edith Freddie John Lester Mark Otis Richard Steven Vincent Vivian William Elonda Ann Cecil

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Clay Clay Clemmons Cleveland Cleveland Cliff Cliff Cliff Clifton-Goolsby Clinkscales
Clyburn Coakley Cobb Cobb Cobb Cobbs Cofer Cohen Cole Cole Cole Coleman Coleman Coleman Coles Coles Coley Coley Coley Coley Coley-Gardner Collier Collington Collins Colon Colson Conde Coney Conner Conte Cook Cook Cook Cook Cooke Cooper Cooper Cooper Cooper Cooper Cooper

First Name Christine
Roslyn Elliott Michael Sidney Catherine Melvin Veronica Deidra Elise Kevin Michael Charles Jonathan Tommy Ronald Raven Carl Clifton Nathaniel Neil Carmen Doris Ray Deborah Robert Curtis Floyd Mary Narvilla Brenda Shavon Arthur Willie Bonnie Sheree Jacques Charles Yvonne Janet Bernice James Jeffrey Troy Ella Beverly Blakeley Harmon Herman Inez Jannie Mae

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Cooper Cooper Cooper Cooper Cooper Cooper Cooper Cooper Cooper Copeland Cosey Cotton Cotton Coulibaly Council Couser Covington Cowans Cox Cox Crane Crawford Crawford Crawford Crawford Crawford Creecy Crenshaw Crews Crews-Noye Crisler Crittenden Crocker Croft Croft Cromartie Cromer Cromwell Crosby Crosdale Crosdale Crossdale Cross-johnson Crossley Crowder Crowder Culton Culver Cummings Cummings Cunningham

First Name Joe Joyce
Kevin Louis Martha Masakela MaRie Samuel Willie Dennis Terry Annette Elizabeth Eric Katie Robert Henrietta Stanley Daile Dennis Ruby Miriam Paula Rufus Tavis Titania Rodney Patricia Floyd Sheila Jewel Robert Johnnie Orlando Reuben Joseph Richard Donan Brenda Clyton Fitzroy Conley Markiesha Cheryl Destnie Eddie Shawn Betty Donita Joel Alma

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Cunningham Cunningham Cunningham Cupid Curry Curry Curry Curry Cuylear Cuyler Cuyler Cyrus Dabre Dade Dagher
Dail Dames Danalds Dance Daniel Daniel Daniel Daniel Daniels Daniels Daniels Daniels Daniels Danley Danner Darby Darkwah Darkwah Darrisaw Darville Dasher Davenport Davidson Davie Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis

First Name
Evanger Whittemore William Lisa Linden Paul Stanley Travis Corbin Jamie Jamie Abraham Ayisha Stanley Sandra Eugene Arnold Jimmie Gwendolyn Dora Reginald Reshaunda Willie Danielle Everett Houston Shiresa Tiffany Yvette Eartha Kevin Kwaku Millacena
L Harvilley Ronise Felix Victor Earl Argie Bobby Carla Courtney Debra Delois Derrick Donna Dora Eric Felix Gloria

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Davis Dawson Day Daymon Daymon Daymon Deary Debolt Dejesus De-Moor-Bey Denmon Dennis Dennis Dennis Dennis Dennis Dennis Denson Denson Dent Dent Desardouin Devers Devine Devine Devoe Devore Dexter Deyampert Dias Dicker Dickerson

First Name Henry James
Jim John John Karen Katie Keith Kelvin Lorenzo Mac Marie Raymond Shawna Stephen Taryn Tina Willie Willie Yvonne Linda Paul Deborah Horace Reginald Marc Michael Nadine Marco Desiree Orland Robert Sharmaine Tamara Tyrone Vernon Earnest Elizabeth Tara Vera Jean Reginald Mary Samuel George Lewis Katherine Rhonda Ruby Wilfred Nathaniel

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Dickerson Dillard Dillard Dillard Dingle Distant Dixon Dixon Dixon Dixon Dixon Dixon Dixon Dobney Dodley Dokyi Donald Donald Donaldson Donaldson Donaldson Donovan Doret Dorman Dorn Dorsey Dorsey Dorsey Dorsey-Davis Dortch Dortch Doucette Doucette Dougal Dougal Dougal Dougall Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douyon Downs Drain Drains Drayton Drayton Drumgoole Dry Duboise

First Name Shania Jacquelyn
Kito Terry Warren Merrick Aaron Eric Jerrell Leroy Michefle Roy Sharon Merline Lydia Emmanuel Curtis Randolph Alvira Robert Stephen Leonora Ronald Bessie Ronnie Aaron Deidra Ronald Linda Michael Vada Sarah Sybil Angela Glenford Vaughn Hugh Chauncey Donald Gregory Mark Olivia Richard Sharonda Versie Thaddeus Jean-Suzan Relford Juanita Jane Kimble

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Duckie Dudley Dukes Dukes Dukes Dukes Dukes Dukes Dulaney Dunbar Duncan Duncan Duncan Dunn Dunwoody Dupree Durham Durham Duroseau Dye Dyson Eady
Ealy Easiley East Easter Easterling Edmonds Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards Egbuson Elam Ej-Amin Eldridge Eldridge Elerbe Ellebie Ellington Elliott Ellis Ellis Ellison Ellison Elmore-Mouzon Elzey Elzey-King

First Name
Rennie Debra Anthony Eric Kevin Mary Samuel Wanda Mark Billie Andrew Esther Lambed Deltris Aaron Mae Barbara Willie Joseph John Leon Lisa George Eliscia Grace Judy Derek Willie Kelly Lashondra Lillian Lucille Reeshemah Rita Willie Francis Diana Warith Kevin Teresa Zack Glera Delories Bruce Clide George Jason Nathaniel Janice Dainion Phyllis

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Em bola English Epps Epps Estrich Evans Evans Evans Evans Evans Evans Evans Evans Evans-Strong Everett
Exum Ezenyilimba Fabre Fagan Fair Fair Farquharson Fason Fauntleroy Fauntroy Fears Fedrick Felder Felton Fennell Fields Fields Finley Fisher Fisher Fisher Fitts Fitzhugh Fitzpatrick Fitzpatrick Flemings Fletcher Fletcher Flood Flood Flowers Flowers Flowers Floyd Floyd Floyd

First Name Ekille Martin Anthony Jacqueline Albert Alice Cassandra Gwendolyn
John Peter Shawn Vincent Yvonne Linda Marion Regina Matthew Vladimir Lascelles Alvin Loraine Ransford Samuel Carla David Wayne Mace Vashti Deborah Darius Eddie Mickey Charles Khaleel Leonard Susan Pressa London Rhonda Robert James Carolyn Jerry Bettie Jerome Cari Eric Lovier Carlton Curtis Johnnie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name
Floyd Floyd Floyd Folden Fontenette Foote Forbes Ford Ford Ford Forehand Fortson Foster Foster Foster Foster Foster France Francis Francis Franklin Franklin Frasier Frazier Frazier Frazier Freeman Freeman Freeman French Fugate Fuller Fuller Fulmore Fulton Fulton Fuqua Fuqua Furlonge Gabriel Gaddis Gaddis Gadson Gadson Gadson Gaffney Gaillard Gainey Gainey Gaither Gales

First Name Laurie Margaret Steven
Rosa George Milton Robert Cynthia Roderick Sarah Jamaine Bennie Bobby Elaine Jeffrey Rick Wendy Leon Errol Lys Peter Tomiko Larry Brenda John Ricky Adam Georgette Mary Latishia Thomas Camilla Hugh Vincent Alicia Vivian Jimmie Lori Marcia Ian Linda Willie Chantieria Joanna Jonas Jason Raymond Larry Thomas Moses Eric

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Gales Gambill Gamble Gamble Garcia Gardner Garrett Garrett
Garzon Gaskin Gaskins Gaskins Gaston Gatewood Gause Gause Gause Gavin Gavin Gavin Gayden Gayhead Gayle Gayton Gayton Gearing Gearing Gentles George Ghile Gibbons Gibbs Gibson Gibson Gibson Gibson Gibson Gibson Gibson Gibson Gibson Gibson-Rankin Gilbert Giichrist Gilchrist Gilchrist Gill Gilley Gilliam Giimore Gilstrap

First Name
Lorraine Vivian Brandi Leverne Wanda Earl Jabari Terry Tanya Wayne Missouri Tameka Beiden William Carl James Raymond Curley Delmarisha Patricia Cynthia Charles Marjorie Edmond Fredwin Bobby Willie Junior Sheila Mulugeta Lanell Julie Anna Floyd Jatunn John Leo Oscar Rhonda Robert Ted Sheila Paul Joan Leroy Linda Aldrick Frederick Tanya Jonathan Stacy

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Gipson Gissendanner Gissendanner Gittens Givens Givens Glasco Glass
Glass Glenn Glover Glover Glover Glover Glover Goddard Golding Gomes Gonite Gooding Goodlitt Goodson Goodwill Goolsby Goolsby Gordon Gordon Gordon Gordon Gordon Graggs Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham-Love Grant Grant Grant Grant Granville Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray Gray

First Name Frederick Andrew Brenda Cecil Diane Earnest
Doris Kathleen Kenneth James Deborah Freddie Glenda Joyce Katrina .Janie Marcella Earl Estifanos Kenwyn Wilbert Henry Geraldine Fred Larry Diana Lynden Ronald Sheree Ulah Darin Celessia Janel John Lewis Samuel
yema
Pearlie Allen Leonard Peter Roosevelt Doreen Carolyn Henry Janice Lena Louis Mary Maurice Samuel

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Gray Grayson Grayson Gray-Spotförd Greathouse Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Greenaway Greene Greer Greggs Greggs Griffin Griffin Griffin Griffin Griffin Griffin Griffin Griffin Griffin Griffin Griffith Griggs Griggs Grigley Grimes Grimes Grimes Grimes Grimes Grisby Grissom Gross Grover

First Name Tommy Arnold Teresa
Dawn Reonda Andrea Annie Franzina Hadley Herbert Isaac Joan Jonathan Joseph Leshawn Maurice Mc Melissa Melvin Odessa Robert Robert Velva Richard Bernice Willie Donald Thomas Ashanti Charles Donnell Frank Harvey Lakinta Patricia Theodore Van Wilfred Wayne Leon Mary Timothy Barry Barry Fred Georgina Terrance Curtis Felina Minnie Beatrice

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Guirand Gulley Gully Gundlach-Besse Gunn Guy Hackworth Hadden Hailey Hails Hailu Hairston Hale
Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hallett Hamer Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamiltonwinbush Hamm Hammond Hammonds Hampton Haney Hankins Hannah Hannah Hannah-Johnson Hardaway Hardaway Harden Harden Haidmon Harduar Hardy Hardy Harmon Harper Harrell Harriell Harrigan Harris Harris Harris Harris

First Name Patrick Vernell Titus Michele Angela Patrick Angela Robert John Alma Alemayehu Kamieka Tracy Anthony Brooksie Carolyn Daisy Dermott Robert Wendy Duane Clarence John Nathaniel Vincent Ronald Arnez Robin Richard Lee Vernice James Strody Allison Raymond Willie Alcenius Laverne Harold Patrice
David Sylvia Eva Jacqueline Rosa Auray Eautha Charles Dominic Dwayne Gary

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris-Harvey Harrison Harrison Harrison Harrison Harrison Harrison Hart Hart Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Hatcher Hawkins Hawkins Hawkins Hawthorne Hawthorne Haye Hayes Hayes Hayes Hayes
Hayes Hayes Haygood Haynes Haynes Haynes Ha.wood Haywood Heard Heard Heard Heath Hedman Hemmings Henderson

First Name Gilbert Justin
L
Maxine Michael Michael Roderick Taheshia Vera William William Cecelia Christopher Donald Eric Jason Walter Willie Carolyn Mildred Elmira Franklin Glen Thomas Willie Steven Jeraline Tina William James Jeffrey Shirleyanne Joseph Keith Martha Samuel Willie Willie Sylvia Ervin Nicoyan Willie Gwendolyn Ronald Irvin Loretta Wanda Helen Leslie Lexford Arthur

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson Hendricks Hendricks Hendrix Hendrix-Marshal Henry Henry Henry Henry
Henton Herbert Hernandez Herriott Heyliger Hicks Hicks Hicks Hicks High Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill
Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill Hill
Hilliard Hills-Hagins Hill-Williams Hines Hinton Hobbs Hobbs Hobbs Hobgood Hobson Hodge Hodge Hodge Holland

First Name Catheleen Mary Michelle Robert
Richard Susie Edward Linda Darnell Elaine Georgie Roslynd Doiphus Nora Robert Linda Antonio Clarence Keith Marietta Michael Lakisha Andre Barbara Brian Diquan Franklin Jerome Kevin Lillian Marcus Robin Ryan Thomas Vivian W Yolonda Leonard Rachael Cheryl Alida Dedric Genorval Jennifer Willie Thomas Kamia Leon Richard Stephon Jerome

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Holley Holmes Holmes Holmes Holmes Holt Holt Hood Hooker Hopson Hopson Horton Hoston Houchins Hough Houston Houston Houston Howard Howard Howard Howard Howard Howell Hudgeon Hudnell Hudson Hudson Huey Huifman Hughes Hunt Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter Huntley Hurley Hurley Hurley Hurst Hurst Huffi Hyman

First Name
John Angela Charles Laurie Stanley Henry lty Timothy Katie Bobby Robert George Erike Willa Dennis Fatina Terell Toni Hulando Jannie Nathaniel Rosenda Willie James James Deborah Kenneth Sarah Ronald Ronald Jesse Patricia Dathan Floria Georgia James Jeaneen Jesse Joshawal Lamant Leon Pamela Samuel Ramona Anderson Fred Fred Daphne Donna Rosa Vanessa

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name
1-tyrams
lkpeze mce Ingram Irvin Irvine Isaac Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson-Jacobs Jacobs James James James James James James James James James James Jarrett Jarrett Jean

First Name
Kevin Obika Carmelita Charles Glen Deidre Kelvin Anthony Audrey Barbara Carolyn Christine Doris Edgar Eula Fivvian Garnett Gracie Leroy Levi Louis Necole Pamela Perry Rickey Robert Robert Rodney Ronald Rosemary Ruth Sherman Steven Tommy Trevor William Amanda Burchell Bennie Beverly Contina Desmond Edna Kelvin Toni Troy Tyronda Tyrone Comora Rory Patrick

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Jefferson Jeffries Jeifries Jeifries Jemison Jemison Jenkins Jenkins Jenkins Jenkins Jenkins Jenkins Jessie Jessie Jessie-Williams Jeter Jeter Jiles John Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson

First Name
Alvin Freddie Quinton Thelma Lorene Rico Harrison Hersey Lome Rose Ruth Terna Algie Calvin Emma Taihaira Valerie Tony Paul Adnianna Alana Alice Allen Anjanette Bacchus Carleen Chester Clinton Conyus Courtney Darnell
Dannen
Dolores Elijah Eric Erik Ernest Ethel Evelyn Fletcher Frank Frank Freddie Frederick Fredrick Gail Gary George Gregory Gregory Hattie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Joiner Jolly Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones

First Name James Jeanette Jerome Jessie Mae Joe John John Johnnie Johnnie Karensee Kenneth Larry Laryssa
Lela Lenier Leonard Leroy Linda Linda Lindon Lorraine Marva Mary Melvin Michael Michael Otha Otis Patricia Patricia Reginald Sam Samuel Thomas Tony Walter Wayne Willie Curtis Gary Alana Alanda Carol Carolyn Charles Charles Clarence Cora Curtis Cynthia Dawn

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones Jones-Smith Joseph Joseph Joseph Joseph-Mcewen Joyles June Kaba Kane Kapiamba
Kea Kegler Kegler

First Name
Demetrius Derrick Diane Edmund Elizabeth Elvis Elwyn Glynda Janet Jarvis Jerelyn Joseph Joseph
KAnn
Karen Marie Marvin Melanie Michael Monica Monique Oliver Paul Phillip Raymond Robert Roderick Sammy Sharian Stuart Terrance Theotis Tiffany Trellis Vaughn Waldo Willie Willis Tamara Garthorne Jacques Tommy Debra Morden Paula Kristen Armond Mbiya Marilyn Jannita Pamela

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Kegler Kelly Kendrick Kennedy Kerr Ketterer Ketterer Keyes Khaleel Kimbrew Kimbrough Kimmins Kinard Kiner King King King King King King-Martin Kinkade Kirk Kirkland Kill Kitt Kittelberger Knight Knight Knight Knight Knight Knotts Knowlin Knuckle Korokeyi Kumar
Kyles Lampley Lane Lane Lane Langford Langford Langkans Langley Lanier Lanos Lantum Lark Larkin Larkin

First Name Willie Moses Mallory Ayana Winston Fredick Samuel Dempsey
Rohan Ruth James Elisha Gertrude Johnna Betty Daniel Donnall Kevin Richard Nicole Kimberly James David Abasi Sabrina Gary Dmitri Elizabeth Gus Jimmy Titania Barry Christopher Keith Solomon Mary Jeffrey Jeannette Jeremiah Joretta Tyrone Bryan Emanual Brooks Denise Loleta Ashley Hoffman Larry Angela Garthel

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name

First Name

Larkin

Nathaniel

Larkins

Erica

Larkins

Geraldine

Lassiter

Ervin

Laster

Joseph

Latimer

Calvin

Latimer

Joe

Latson

Marcus

Lauture

Emmanuel

Lawhorn

Edward

Lawhorn

Harold

Lawhorn

James

Lawhorn

Tyrone

Lawhorn

Tyrone

Lawrence

Gregory

Lawrence

Joan

Lawrence-Waters Myrna

Lawson

Gwendolyn

Lawson

Lloyd

Lawson

Sheryl

Lawson-Watson Gladys

Lay

Wesley

Leach

Pandora

Leach

Randy

Leach

Tia

Leak

Sirrone

Leath

Kimberly

Leavell-Smith

Deborah

Lee

Allen

Lee

Wanda

Lee-Simmons Margaret

Lettore

Keith

Leflore

Shellie

Leflore

Thema

Legette

Larry

Lennon

Daisy

Leonard

Lashandra

Leslie

Jerald

Lester

Lubertha

Lester

Marty

Lesure

Douglas

Letang

Sybille

Lewis

Aston

Lewis

Dawn

Lewis

Fonda

Lewis

Geraldine

Lewis

Gregory

Lewis

James

Lewis

Jeronica

Lewis

Johnny

Lewis

Karen

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Lewis Lewis Lewis Lewis Lewis Lewis Leysath Libbett Licorish Liggins Lightbourn Lightfoot Lightle Lightle
Ligon Ligon Ligon Likely Lilley Linton Linton Lise Little Little Littleton Lively Livingston Lobrutto Lockett Lockett Lockett Lofton Lofton Lofton Lofton Logan Logan Logan Logan Lomb Lomnick Long Lorenzo Lott Love Love Love Love Love Lovejoy Lovejoy-Harris

First Name
Kemi Lewis Paula Valerie William William Kevin Vera Garth Derek Cislyn T Charles Leverne Benjamin Benjamin Hattie William Patrick Dennis Tera Sherri Gerard Milton Randolph Sarah Sherry Stephanie Garland Kenneth Lyman Alvin Denise Peggy Thomas Eric Erica Harold Jeanine Kathryn Jacqueline Clarence Bessie Jerry David Latanya Patricia Rozie Warner Frank Carolyn

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Lovett Lovett Lovett Lowe Lucas
Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas-Velazquez Luden Luellen Lyman Lynch Lyons Lyons Macarthy Mack Mack Mack Mack Mack Macon Madden Maddox Maddox Maddox Magee Magnolia Major Majors Majors Majors Makonnen Malcolm Malcolm Malimabe Manley Manley Manley Mann Mann Mann Manning Manns Manuel Mark Marshall Marshall Marshall Marshall Marshall

First Name
Charles Dweldon Narada Alfred David Frederick Khem Mary Francine Christine Janet Rebecca Sebert Franklin Mark Philip Clyde Devin Joseph Mary Roderick Fred Eleanor Shawn Stephanie Tameka Catherine Sharon Wilbert Fldred John Larry Salome Audry Carl Matile Cassandra Kenneth Ruth Ronnie Susan Thomas Michael Deborah Dorothy Levar April Charles Craig Marie Melvin

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Marshall
Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin-Manns Mason Mason Mason Mathis Mathis Mathis Mathis Mathis Matthews Matthews Matthews Maurice May Maye Mayes Mayes Mcabrew Mccadney Mccadney Mccadrìey Mccall Mccall Mccauley Mccauley Mcclain Mcclary Mcclary Mcclary Mcclary Mcclary Mcclemmon Mcclendon Mccloud Mccloud Mccloud Mçcollough Mccoullum Mccown Mccoy Mccoy Mccoy Mccray Mccray Mccrea

First Name Ricky Earnest Jennifer Jerry Norman Sereena Nadine Melvin Reginald Tony Barbara Chester Eddie James
Ronald Alex Darrel Norman Miracle Melvin Louis Debraca Takia Anthony Curt Senta Yvonne Gloria Shawn Cynthia Ti Ona Regina Catherine David Letha Lynn Terrance Darryl Diane Arthur Hazelene Lee Michelle Francis Claudet Roy Teresa Trelawney John Joseph Thomas

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Mccullough Mccullough Mccullough Mccullough Mccullough Mccullough Mccullough Mccullough Mccullough Mcdaniel Mcdaniel Mcdaniel Mcdonald Mcelroye Mcfadden Mcfadden Mcfadden Mcfadden Mcfadden Mcfadden Mcfarland Mcfarland Mcfollins Mcghee Mcgill Mcgill Mcgill Mcgill Mcgill Mcgowan Mcgrady Mckee Mckenzie Mckenzie Mckinley Mckinney Mckinney Mckinney Mckinney Mckissic Mcknight Mcknight Mcknight Mcknight Mcknight Mclaren Mcleod Mcmath Mcmillan Mcmillian Mcmillon

First Name Amos Blesse
Hershann John Levester Patricia Roy Shirley Tracy Delois Dem itri James Ike Todd John Kenneth Lizzie Ron Ticey Willie Oscar Samuel Allen Cynthia Annie Denise Eric Furman Karen Myrtis Debra Donna Clinton Kenneth Marlene Alleson Barbara Dennis Joseph Leah Edward Eric James Laura Robert Mark Nathaniel Harrison Earl David Kim

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Mcnair Mcnair Mcphatter Mcray Medina Medley Medlock Medlock Medlock Menefield Mercer Meredith
Merriam Merriam Merrida Merritt Merritt-Brooks Mewborn Mikell Miles Miles Mites Miles Miles Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller-Floyd Mills Mills Milton Milton Mincey Misere Misere Mitchell

First Name James Theotis
Elliot Huey Isabel Algie Casseophia Obadiah Roland Cleo Prince Denise Fonati Phil Richard Ira Linda David Deborah Annie Dorothy Dwight Ethel Gladys Bernadine Bette Charles Delores Elizabeth Emaul Emma Ervin Joann Larry Leonard Maranda Mary Michael Rufus Tanya Tory Walter Vanessa Flora Sonja Harriett Linda Laura Marie Milio Jennifer

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell M-Johnson Mobley Mobley Mobley Molaire Molaire Molaire
Monda Monroe Monroe Monroe Montague Montford Montford Montgomery Montgomery Moody Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moorehead Moorehead Moorehead Morgan Morgan Morgan Morris Morris Morris

First Name
Kathryn Latina Lodessa Martha Rita Veronica Tasia Ben Catherine MarIa Alexandra Michel Tulienne Joanne Alonda Debris Pallie Colin Mollie Ronnie Pamela Robert Beverly Alethia Amber Bettie Curtis Eric Fanita Fborine Frank Harold Irene Janet Jeffery Kathleen Kevin Linda Patricia Teiah Tina Zuri Brent Daryl
Erba
Charles Goya James Anthony Cassandra Emma

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morrison Morrison Morrison Morrison Morrison Morrison Mosely Moses Mosley Mosley Mosley Mosley Moss Moss Mostiller Moton Moultrie Moultrie Mouzon Moxley
Moyd Muhammad Muhammad Muir Muldrow Mullings Mullins Murphy Murphy Murphy Murphy Murphy Murray Mwangi Myers Myers Myricks Myricks-Crawfor Nash Nash Nathan Nathan Neal Neal Neal Neal

First Name James James
Lucille Vernon William Carrie Emma Eric James Susan Vanessa Betty Lynn Kenneth Linda Robert Shirley Robert Robin Dennis Anya David Nancy Ronald William Margaret Rasheed Rashid Maurice John Olive Melinda Jake Marcus Maude Robert T John Anthony Rosemary Terry Melvin Sheila Angela Lee Carlton Patricia Diane Evelyn Marvin Shirley

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Neil Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nelson Nero Nesmith Nesmith Nesmith Nesmith Nesmith Nesmith Nesmith Neufville Newport Newsome Newson Newton Nichols Nichols Nisbeth Nix Nnorom Noble Norman Norris Norris Norton Nunnally Nwadiogbu Nwugwo Nyanplu Oakley Obasi Obiomon Odita Odum Odunfa Oglesby Omafuaire Omally Omeally

First Name
Leslie Carl Derrick Diane Donovan Dorrean Howard James Juanita Odester Parnell Patricia Shawne Winston Patricia Anthony Bobby Jannie Jeremiah Maggie Michael Troy Dianne Vivian Sheila Dolphus Timothy Robert William Allan Blanche Margaret Rosa Michael Robert Ronald Kenneth Tracy Chineze Boniface Augustine Colin Patrick Samuel Clement Charles Olumuyiwa Judy Moses Hubert Lloyd

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name
Oneil Oquendo Orr Orridge Osborne Osborne Osbourne Osodo Overton Owens Owens Oxendine Ozdaglar Page Paige Paige Paige Palmer Pardner Parham Paris Paris Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parks Parmer Parris Parrish Partee Pascoe Pate Patmon Patmon Patricio Patten Patterson Patterson Patterson Patterson Patterson Patterson Patterson Patterson Patterson Patterson Patterson Payne

First Name Frank Denise Dexter Andrea
D Frances Chariton Dominique Laurence Fanny Kimberly Frances Carol Lloyd Eddie Joseph Tellis Deborah Gregory
F
Brandon Christine Angela Charles Patricia Peggy Terrell Terry Randolph Sherita Betty Allen Lisa Alfred Latroy Sharon Willie Gregory Karla Charlene Charles Henry James Jerry John Miriam Ora Sherlonda Wilhelmina Willie Erica

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name
Payne Payne Payne Payne Payton Peace-Long Pearson Pearson Peatross-Wilson Peay Pelt Pendleton Peoples Perdue Perez Perkins Perkins Perry Perry Perry Perry Perry Peters Peters Peterson Peterson Peterson Peterson Pettway Peyton-Taylor Phelps Phillips Phillips Phillips Phillips Phipps Phipps-Yawn Pickett Pickett Pickett Pickett Pierce Pingel Pinkney Pinkston Pipion Pittman Pills Pius Pias Poindexter

First Name Gregory Harry
Hazel Tyrell David Rosa Francoise Rose Marcia John Brenda Silas Jeffery Coleman Jorge Leonard Virginia Dewann Dianne Rochelle Rodney Wanda Emmett Patricia Craig Curtis Garry Keior, Joyce Drusilla Keith Desmond Nicole Norma Roderick Kenyatta Vonzella Annelle Frankie Lavern Mary William Paula Stephanie Regina Cassandra Shiressa Eddie Johnny Sam John

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Poinsette Poinsette Poku Poles Polk Popoola-Olufemi Porchea Portee Porter Porter Porter Postell Postwaite Pottinger
Powell Powell Powers Prad Prad Prescod Prescott Preston Price Pride Pringle Pringle Prior Pritchett Proctor Proctor Proctor Prophete Pryce Pugh Pugh Pursley Quarles Quick Quinn Quinn Quinn Quinn Quinn-Jr Raby Radford Raines Rance Randall Randle Randolph Randolph

First Name Gwendolyn
Louis Kofi Christopher James Olapeju Silas Natalie Darryl Gary Robin Andrew William Noel Aquila Ellen Julian Alex William Nyron Mary Kenneth Tony James Jessie Noralean Ella Robin Delores Dexter Patricia Guerda Monique Gloria Jeffrey Dawna Valerie Leroy Deark Donald Douglas Julian Donald Millard John Lanardus Kelly April Andrea Beverly Shayla

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Rankin Ransome Rasheed Rawlings Rawis Rawis Ray Raybon Read Read Reaves Reaves Reaves Reaves Reaves Rector Reddick Redditt Redfield Redmond Reed Reed Reese Reese Reese Reid Reid Reid Reid Reid Reynolds Reynolds Reynoso Rhabb Rhodes
Ricci Rice Rice Richards Richardson Richardson Richardson Ricks Ridley Ridley Riggs Riley Riley Riley Rittmeyer Rivers

First Name Annanesia
Don Aqeel Kecia Ethel Vincent Harold Dennis Annette Gloria Carlos Deborah Geraldine Milton Stephen Donald Franklin Margaret Sadie Robert Perry Rex Arthur Johnnie William Adrienne Beresford Derek John Trevor Edith William Paula Hampton Leo Dora Bridgette Carrie Ralph Arthur James Ronald Ellen Glenda Willie Cynthia Brenda Leon Vanessa Ruby Aszie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Rivers Roberts Roberts Roberts Roberts Roberts Robertson Robertson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Robinson Roby Rochelle Rockemore Rodgers Rodgers Rodwell Rogers Rogers Rogers Rogers Rogers Roker Rolle Roquemore Roscoe Rose Rosier Rosier Ross Rouchon Rouse

First Name Montgomery Anthony Artiville Do-Ries Stanley Stephanie Stacey
Sullivan Albert Beanita Bernard Brian Charles Charles Cheryl Cynthia Drucilla Erica Gloria Irene James Jeoffrey John Maggie Paul Rhonda Richard Ronald Rose Tito Michael Jinada Dana Anthony Cony Michael Edward Kevin Luberta-lola Ralph Trusky Theonion Palmire Charles Vivian Edward Robin Teresita Rosa Jean-Claude Virgie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Rousseau Rowell Royster Rucker Rucker
Ruffun
Ruffun
Ruise Ruiz Rump Russell Russell Russell Russell Rutland Rutland Rutledge Rutley Rutley Sackey Saint-Joy Salone Salter Salters Samuel Samuels Sancho Sanders Sanders Sanders Sanders Sanford Sanford Santiago-Adams Sartor Saulsbury Saxton Scarborough Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott

First Name
Cordel Cynthia Tommie Darryl Kimberly Milton Milton Doretha Luis Namon Carbert Sylveira Valerie William Clinton Shontaye Lee Dwight Shondrell Kim Lussene Ricky Richard Elijah Andre Lamar Chervante Frank Isaac Luther Reginald James Theodore Christopher Kenneth Bernard Anthony Alvenia Alexander Angela Angela Annette Cecil Cecil Christina Claudius David Delores Earline Eunice George

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scott Scoff Scurry Sealey Sealy Sealy Sealy Sealy Seawright Seay
Sebastien Sepulveda Sermons Sesler Session Session Session Setegn Seules Sewell Shade Shaw Shaw Shaw Shaw-Elliott Shears Sheffa Sheffield Sheffield Sheiwood Shepard Shepherd Shepherd Sheppard Sheppard Sheppard Sheppard Sherman Sherrill Sherrill Shields Shine Shine

First Name Julia
Karen Kenneth Louise Maria Marvin Melvin Randolph Raymond Walette Milton Julisa Annie Colis Guinevere Trevor Kelvin Darrow Cassandre Carmen Thomas William Aretha Boris Roberta Eshetu Desadeen Everton Daniel Charles Joey Stephen Mattieree Harold Annie Aubrey James Daryl Shannon Jacqueline Mark Debra Esther Marcus Nathaniel Tavares Jana Reginald James Ora Paul

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Shipp Shirley Short Sibley Sibley Sider Sigler Sigler Silas Simmonds Simmons Simmons Simmons Simmons Simmons Simmons Simmons Simmons Simms Simms Simms Simonetti Simpkins Simpson Simpson Simpson Simpson Simpson Sims Sims Sims Sims Sims Singletary Singletary Singleton Singleton Sinkler Sinkler Sizer Skrine Slater Slater Slaughter Sloan Sloan Sloan Small Smalley Smiley Smiley-Lamar

First Name
Lorraine Ronald Jeffrey Johnny Tynisah John Brian Ida Robert Cuthbert Avery Camille Carlos Henry Henry Jimmie Joann Timothy Beatrice Dorothy Jerome Loretha Clarence Deryck Mark Patrick Sherman Stephen Fallon Jerome Mary Ronald Shawn Larry Olin Maurice Warren Carrie Latasha Richard Earl Billy Dwight Gary Donna Lucile Sherard Joseph Marshall Erma Sonja

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith

First Name Aaron Albert Alberta Aiphonso Bernice Bessie
Bryon Caprice Carolyn Charles Cornell Curtis Darnell Debbie Dianna Donna Douglas E Eddie Edward Ella Elnora Emmanuel Ernest Ernest Frank Herman James James James Jamian Jesse Joann Joanne John John Joy Julian Kelvin Larry Lawyer Linda Mary Mary Melvin Michael Michelle Mickiel Mildred Priscilla Robert

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smithers Smithers Smithers Snead Sneed Sneed Sneed Snowden Snowden Snyder
Soles Solomon Southerland Sowell Spall Sparks Spears Spears Speed Spencer Spencer Spencer Spitz Springer Squires Stallworth Stamps Stanley Stanley Stanley Starkes Starks Starks Starks Steed Steele Steele-Nesmith Stenson

First Name
Rodney Sennie Shawn T Toi Tremayne Víctor Virgel Wendell William Willie Willie Yolanda Cher4 Kelli Melvin Gloria Emma Marvin Sherri Cynthia Wallace William Norma James George Quinton Raymond Vivian Leonard Nathan Nikia Michael Thelma Woodrow Vanessa Wendy Kerwin Nicole Altamease Aaronda David Robert Shawn Ira Keisha Patricia Terry Holly Tawaunda Sandra

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Stephens Stepney Sterling Stevens Stevens Stevens Stevens Stevens Stewart Stewart Stewart Stewart Stewart Stewart Stewart Stewart Stewart Stewart Stewart Stlouis Stock Stockman Stokes Stokes Stone Stoudemire-Jr Straughter Straughter Straughter Straughter Straughter Strong Strother Stroud Stubbs Stuckey Stukes Sturdivant Suber Suggs Sullivan Sullivan Sullivan Summerville Sutton Sutton Sutton Sutton Sutton Swann Swann

First Name Brenda Harold Seymour Jackie Marvin Mattie Rickey Sammie
Carl Gloria Ivery Jerry Malcolm Monica Patricia Questena Reginald William
Willie Joshua Tamera Deniress Andre Michael Benjamin James Cleveland Cynthia Donna Stanley Stanley Edyth Woodson Vincent Brian Juanita Shirley
MaRie Michael Lionel Dennis Elizabeth Mercedes
Jeffrey Dorothy Harriet Lisa Mattie Wilmer Gershum Terry

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Sweeney Swinson Swoope Sylar Sylvester Tabor Tadal Taft Taggart Tanksley Tate Tate Tatum Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor Taylor-Lathen Teague Teague Tecleab Tedla Tejan Terrell Terry Terry Terry Theus Thom Thomas Thomas Thom as Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas

First Name Mary Ronald Richard Vernice James Eloise
Rene Sandra Glenn Willette Annie Steve Tomia Alan Bonnie Carolyn Charles Damian Fabian Fanecha Frederick Henry James Paul Ross Joanna Gwenevere Zedric Adal Tsegay Mohamed Gregory Carol Delores Glendale Carole Norma Alice Betty Brenda Cecelia Denise Derrick Dorothy Elaine Ernel Gregorio Gregory Grover Henriann James

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thompson Thornton Thornton Thrower Tillard Tillard

First Name James Jimmy Joseph Kale Marc Margaret Marie Mark Michael Nija
Passion Renate Rick Ricky Rosa Rosetta Sharon Shirley Stacey Sylvester Tammy Theo Tier Tracey Ursula Vivian Willie Arienton Charles Clarence Debra Gary Greselda Kevin Kristyanne Leroy Orlean Paul Renee Robert Samuel Stephen Taneika Trevor Willie Willie Charles Elizabeth Jesse Harriet Robert

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Tiller Tillman Times Tinch Tisdale Tisdale Tisdale Tisdale Tisdale Tisdale Tisdale Tisdell Tissera Titus
Tombin
Toney Tookes Toole Townsend Townsend Toyer Tramel Tramel Trammell Travis Travis Trott Truesdale Tryels Tryels Tubbs Tucker Tucker Tucker Tucker Tucker Tucker Tucker Tuckett Turner Turner Turner Turner Turner Turner Turner Turner Turner Turner Turner Turner-Sr

First Name
Earnest William Rubie Peggy Debra Debris Ernest Harry Manson Virginia William Paul Jayasekara Gwendolyn James Wayde Willie Algernon Diana Ensley Donald Emma
Tan
James Brian Kevin Gloria Harriet Calvin Renee Mary Fletcher Ivann Levester Phyllis Regina Steven Tracy Ali Barbara Bobby Henry Isaiah Lucy Macarthur Mattie Mildred Myrtle Nathan Valerie Larry

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Turnipseed Twyman Tyler Tyler Tyler Tyson-Johnson
Umoh Upshaw Urquhart Ussery Uter Vallot Vance Vandèrberg Vanhoose Vanier Vannoy Vansprewenburg Varnado Vaughn Ventus Vernon Vickers Vines Vining Vollmar Wade Wainwright Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker Walker-Kaiyum Walker-Stuppy

First Name Gary
Ella Dennis Kevin Sabrina Aithea Joseph Eugene Gabrielle Floyd William Ronald Calvin Irving Fancy Noel Anthony Brett Keith Michael Sidney Curtis David Sonia Sheila Barbara Stephanie Paul Adolphus Alvin Barbara Carolyn Cornell Darral David Deborah Earl Essie Gerald Gregory James Korine Linda Lois Milton Russell Syreeta Vielka Weldon Leslie Stephanie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Wallace Wallace Wallace Walters Walters Walton Ward Ward Ward Ward-Tucker Ware Ware Warfield Warnick Warr-Bayonne Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Washby Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Waters Waters Waters Watkins Waver Weaver Weaver Webb

First Name
Benjamin Roderick Susan Daniel Mathew Hunter Alfonzio Gory Reginald Deborah Joseph Vickie Deborah Dorothy Nancy Antoinette David Eddie Loretta Victoria Louise Alice Allen Arthur Christopher Cornelia Emily Frankie Gwendolyn Henry Jackson Jacqueline Johnny Larry Lillie Lucille Mary Richard Roosevelt Shawntay Stephanie William William Diane Tamika Willie James Maurice Iris Willie Grant

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Webb Webb Welch Welcher Weilborn Wells Wells Wells Wells Wells-Sheppard West West White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White White Whitehead
Whituield Whitley Whitlow Whiff Whiff Wiggins Wiggins Wilbern Wilburn Wilburn
Wiley Wiley Wilkes Wilkinson Williams

First Name
LineRo Shirley Albert Roy Marshall Gregory James Lisa Moffett Mary Sammie Samuel Adrian Andrew Anthony Carolyn Cassandra Constance Curt Darlene David Donald Elizabeth Fred Freddie Godfrey Howard John Keisha Lance Marvin Orrett Phillip Ronald Vera Carl
Noria Bobb Nathaniel David Thomas John Roxie David Juanita
Ryan Clayton W Tekee Stephen Annie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams

First Name Burkett Cassandra Clarence Cristal Cynthia
Daryt Dauphine Debris Diana Donald Earnest Edna Eleanor Freddie Gary Gary Gina Glenn Grace Helen Hollie James James Jeanie Jeff Jonathan Kevin Kimberly Lanicia Larry Larry Larry Lawrence Leith Leon Lisa Lynn Marilyn Mark Marion Marsell Mary Mary Michael Michael Rhoda Richard Robert Ronnie Ronnie Ronnie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams-Turner Willis Willis Willis Willis Willoughby Wilridge Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson-Boyd Winbush Winfield Winfrey Wingo Winston Winters Wirmum Wisdom

First Name Samuel
Sonya Tammara Tenessa Teresa Todd Toni Walter William Donna Angela Douglas Gloria Veronda Leatha James AndreU Carolyn Cathy Clifford Darrick Edward Frank Isaac Jeffrey Jeffrey Jerome Joyce Kathleen Kim Lloyd Matthew Michelle Monique Rodger Ronald Rose Ruth Steven Vera William Woodrow Mamie Oscar Renato Tommy Leandrew Darrell Brenda Edwin Clifton

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Wise Witherspoon Witherspoon Witherspoon Wolfe Womack Wood Woodham Woodie Woods Woods Woods Wooten Worth Worth Worth Worthy Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright Wyatt Wyatt Wyatt Wyatt Wynn Wynn Wynn Wynn Yancey Yandila Yarn Yawn Yeboah

First Name Mary Charles Jay Rebecca Herbert Jonathan Raymond Hyser
Russell Charles Gwendolyn Norris Gilda Laverne Otha Timothy Darryl Chazet Christine Cleo Gail Jack James Jimmy John Kanika Kenneth Kenneth Laura Margaret Myla Nathaniel Recia Samuel Samuel Seante Shundra Terence Danny Mildred Myla Sandra Helen Marilyn Terrance Trent Johnny Simon Michael Lonnie Samuel

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Last Name Yelder Yournans Young Young Young Young Young Young Young Young Young Zieger

First Name Betty Marietta Allen
Craig Frederick Jayson Kendra Michael Okeler Ronald Tracee Megan

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

EXHIBIT B
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

NUMBER
1 2 3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

NAMES
Adams, Gloria Adams, Ruth Allison, Gerald Alston Gladys Alston, Monroe Alston, Richard Anderson, Christine Andrew, Bessie Andrews, Shirley Archie, Joseph Arlene, Constance Armstrong, Joseph Armstrong, Mary Ashford, William
Austin, Art (deceased) Bailey, Annie
Bailey, Edwin Baines. Debrah Baker, Juanita Baker, Toni Baker, Willie-Florida Barber, Denise Barber, Jean Barclay, Starling Barideauix, Delois Barlow, Amanda Barner, Peggie Barnes, Charles Barnes, L.C. Barnes, Shirley A. Barnes, Theree Barnes, Virger Barnet, Robert Barows, Flory Barton, Dora Beaty, Clarence Beaty, Julia Beaty, Marion Bell, Ethel
Bell, Joe L
Bell, Maraget Bellomy, Lydo M. Benjamin, Dave Bennett, Inez

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

45

Bennett, Kenneth

46

Bennett, Stella

47

Bentley, Carletta

48

Bernell, Stella

49

Berrouet, Carolle

50

Beverly, Janice

51

Blackford, George

52

Blackshear, Sheila

53

Blair, Trudy

54

Blake, Raleigh J.

55

Blanding, Patricia

56

Boles, Millie

57

Bonham, Almeater

58

Bonham, J.D.

59

Booker, William

60

Boone, William

61

Bostick, Celean

62

Bovide, Bernie

63

Boykin, Jessie

64

Bradford, Carlo

65

Bradley, Alfreda

66

Bradley, Mattie

67

Bradley, Tenia

68

Brair, Rodney

69

Brewer, Ida

70

Bridges, Ceasar

71

Bridges, Rosa

72

Bridges, Vivian

73

Brinson, Mary

74

Brinson-Moss, Darthenia

75

Brito, Betty

76

Britton, Andre

77

Bromill, Colbert

78

Bronn, Cleveland

79

Brooks, Arthur

80

Brooks, Arthur Ill

81

Brooks, Olympia

82

Brooks, Rosie

83

Brown, Alpaul

84

Brown, Annabelle

85

Brown, Annie

86

Brown, Augusteen

87

Brown, Bessie

88

Brown, Bobbie

89

Brown, Cleveland Sr.

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

90

Brown, Harrie

91

Brown, James

92

Brown, Julian

93

Brown, Kenneth

94

Brown, Mary G.

95

Brown, Mattie

96

Brown, Melvin K.

97

Brown, Thelma

98

Brown, Vincent

99

Brown, Willie

100

Broyld, Alberta

101

Brumfield, Brenda

102

Brumfield, Frederick

103

Brunson, Mary

104

Brunson, Peggy

105

Bryant Anna

106

Bryant, Claudua

107

Bryant, Louise

108

Bryant, Melvin

109

Bryant, Rochelle

110

Bryant, Sidney

111

Bryant, William

112

Bryd, Lonnie

113

Buckingham, Stephen

114

Buckner, Valarie

115

Buford, Laura

116

Burden, Blondell

117

Burden, Ossie

118

Burgess, Solomon

119

Burgues, Matheus

120

Buroughs, Myrtle

121

Butler, Julie

122

Butler, Robert

123

Butts, Carolyn

124

Bynoe, Eucline L.

125

Bynoe, Wendy

126

Campbell, Bezero

127

Campbell, Renford

128

Cardwell Maylene J.

129

Carlos, Mary

130

Carrington, Carolyn

131

Carrington, Evelyne

132

Carrol, Earl

133

Carter, Srenda

134

Carter, Lenora

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

Carter, Melvin Carter, Raymond Carter, Rosie M. Carter, Stephine R. Cathey, Jernoe Cathey, Ruth Chandler, Jimmie Chandler, Rich
Charles, Linda Cherry, Tioga Chess, Sam Christian, Charley Cladwell, Jimmie Clancy, Siah Clanton, Cynthia Clarence, Betty Clark, James Clark, Richard
Clarke, Debris Clay, Christine Cliff, Catherine Clifton, Bessie Cobb, Betty
Cobb, Joel Jr. Cobb, Jonathan
Cobb, Tommmie L Cohen, Ann Coleman, Hazel Coleman, Marzell Coles, Sharon Coles, Sharon Coley, Carolyn Coley, Narvilla Coloson, Sherie Cooley, Thomas Cooper, Cleo Cooper, Mary Cooper, Mary, Cathrine Cooper, Mose Cosgriff, Mark Covington, Henrietta Cowart, Elizabeth Cox, Lynwood Crendshaw, Patricia Crendshaw, Walter

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224

Crimm, James Crosby, Albert Crosby, Brenda Crumpler, Rudy Crumpler, Theodis Cummings, Duenda Cunningham, Bernnie Cunningham, Geveva Cunningham, Marilyn Cure, Debris Curry,James Curry, Joseph Curry, Rudine Cyrus, Abraham Cyrus, Lizzie DaFang, Davidson Dagher, Sandra Daniel, Reshunda Daniels, Maggie Danzy, Elbert WN Dauhterty, Cauje Davidison T. Watt (deceased) Davidson, Benjamin Davidson, Betty Davidson, Defang Davidson, Esther Davidson, Gwendolyn Davis, Ariel Davis, Courtney Davis, Eddie Davis, Ella lee Davis, Hazel Davis, Kelvin Davis, Lorenzo Davis, 011ie Dawson, Cathy Dawson, Jacqueline Dawson, Linda Daymon, Donald Dearring, Cassandra Deborah, Barnes Delphenha, Shirley Dennis, Jim Dent, Stephanie Dent, Tara D.

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

225

Dickerson, Charlott

226

Dixon, Josephine

227

Dixon, Roosevelt

228

Doyle, Nathaniel

229

Drains, Thaddeus

230

Drummond, Evelyn

231

Dudley, Debra

232

Dukes, Mary Unda

233

Dunham, 0111e

234

Dunlaf, Elizabeth

235

Dyck, Kevin/Karen (deceased)

236

Edward L. Bettie

237

Edward Willie Mae

238

Ellington, Delories

239

Ellington, Willie

240

Ellis, Altamease

241

Epps, Jacqueline

242

Evans, Gwendolyn

243

Evans, Martha

244

Falls, Beather

245

Fas, Samuel

246

Faulker, Debra

247

Felton, Thomas

248

Fitt, Pressa

249

Fitts, Joann

250

Fitzpatric, Beatrice

251

Flager, Betty

252

Flander, Angelina

253

Flanders, Edna

254

Fletcher, Carolyn

255

Fleth, Mary

256

Florence, Frances

257

Ford, Betty

258

Ford, Jessie

259

Ford, Jimmy

260

Ford, Sarah

261

Forde, Lawrence

262

Fortson, Bennie

263

Fowles, Hazel

264

Franklin, Lillie

265

Franklin, Willie

266

Franks, Larry

267

Frazier, John

268

Fredick, Alberta

269

Freeman, Eugene

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314

Freeman, queen (deceased) Fulmore, Cleo Fulmore, Maudina Gaddis, Linda Gadson, Florie Gadson, James Gainey, Thomas Galye, Mary Garret, William Gartrell, Elizabeth Gatson, Johnetta Gause, Bernard
Gause, Carl
Gause, William Gayden, Cynthis Gayle, Marjorie Gaynor, Permilary Geard, Thelma Geisendanner, Joyer Gentry, Lillian (Dorsey) Germany, Wilbert Gibson robert Gibson, Barbara Gibson, Gloria Gibson, James (deceased) Gibson, John Gibson, Kahleen Gibson, Leo Gibson, Marquerite Gibson, Mary Gibson, Rankan Gibson, Ranta Shelia Gibson, Robert Giles, Duncan Gilliam, Tonya Gissendanner, Andrew Gissendanner, Joyer Gleason, Linda Glover, Adelia Glover, Joyce Gordon, Janet Graham, John Grandberry, Bessie Granison, Betty Granison, Lisa

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

315

Grant-Smith, Merlan

316

Gray, Lena

317

Gray, Louis

318

Grayson, Shirley

319

Green, Andrea

320

Green, Daisy

321

Green, Ellis

322

Green, Gertrude

323

Green, Jonathan

324

Green, Leroy

325

Green, Manual

326

Green, Mary L

327

Green, Thaddeus

328

Green, Zettie

329

Greene, Pearl (deceased)

330

Griffin, Lithe

331

Griffin, Patricia

332

Griffin, Sylvester

333

Griffin, Wifred

334

Gunner, Mary

335

Hagina, Josio

336

Hails, Alma

337

Hale, Loretta

338

Hales, William

339

Hall, Brooksie

340

Hall, Dorothy

341

Hamer, Theresa Ann

342

Hamilton, Adline

343

Hamilton, Frank

344

Hamilton, Joyce

345

Hamilton, Lillie

346

Hanks, David

347

Hannah, Strody

348

Harden, Laverne

349

Harrell, Orilee

350

Harris, Jessie

351

Harris, Ruby

352

Hart, Jake

353

Harvey, Cecelia

354

Harvey, Clinton

355

Harvey, Franklin

356

Hassos, Kleonike

357

Hayes, Martha

358

Haygood, Cochran Phyllis

359

Heard, Thelma

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404

Henderson, Arnold Henderson, Bonnie
Henderson, Pratt
Henderson, Ramona Henry, James Henry, John E. Henry, Mary Herbert, Nora Herring, Mary Hill, Janet Hill, Lillian Hills, Gloria Hillsman, Ruth Holland, William Holley, Carrie L. Holm,es, Betty Hood, Tim Hopkins, Dorothy Hopson, Robert Houston, Saconda Howard, Martha Howard, Willie Humphrey, Yvonne Hunt, Ulysses Hunter, Donald Hunter, Doris mce, Carmelita Irvin, Eloise Ivery, Sherry Jackson, Carolyn Jackson, Emma jackson, Eugene
Jackson, uni Jackson, Mary H.
Jackson, Ruth E. Jackson, Sandy Jackson, Thomas Jackson, Willie Jamerson, Amanda Jamerson, Charles James, Angeline James, Bennie James, Edna James, Jessie L. James, Linda

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449

James, Rose Jarrett, James Jaycelyn, Pannell
Jeffers, William Jeffries, Matheral Jenkins, Leola Jenning, Maria Johnson, Adrianne Johnson, Anjanette Johnson, Carrie Johnson, Edith Johnson, Gary Johnson, Jaralene johnson, Walter Jones J. Willa Jones, Alberton
Jones, Ben Jr Jones, Carol Jones, Clarence Jones, Cynthia Jones, Eudoiphin Jones, Frank Jones, Frederick W. Jones, Jannie Jones, Joanne Jones, Johnnie Mae Jones, Joseph Jones, Karen Jones, Leon Jones, Leonard
Jones, Mabel Jones, Michael
Jones, Rebecca Jones, Sammie L.
Jones, Wendell Joseph, Brendal Key, Thomas Killings, Betty Lou Killings, Henry Killings, Rutha Kinbrough, James Kindred, Necola King, Betty King, Redwin J. King, Richard

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494

King, Theresa Kinir, Edwin Kitts, Abasi Knight, Doris Knight, Peggy Knight, William Kovac, Anna Ladd, bernice Lamar, Carl Lane, Florence Lane, Robert Lane, Robert Jr. Lane, Tyrone Law, Alveta Lee, Diane Lee, Eyonia
Lee, Walter Leigh, Rather
Lemual, Daisy LeSure, Beulah Lewis, Carolyn Lewis, Franklin Lewis, Geraldine Lewis, Robert Leytle, Jessie Libbett, Vera Lighte, Alice Lighte, Charles
hm, Sun Bin
Lin, Kilcha
Little, Milton
Lively, Sarah Lockett, Daryl Lockett, Garland Lofton, Alvin Logan, Lithe Lomnick, Jacquline Long, C. Johnny Louis L. Lucas, Mary A. Lundy, Peggy Mack, Eddie
Mack, Mrytle
Magee, Joyce Magnole, Selemina

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

495

Magnolia, Jeremiah

496

Magnolia, Sharon

497

Malt, M.

498

Manning, Dennis

499

Manning, Wanda

500

Manning, Wendy

501

Marion, Virginia

502

Marshall, Thomas

503

Martin, Earnest

504

Martin, Jerry

505

Matthews, Burgues

506

Mattiex, Ivory

507

Maxwell, Eddie

508

McCan, Sandra

509

Mccartor, Johnnie

510

McCarty, Ethel

511

McClary, Willie-sugery

512

McCoggle, John

513

Mccoullun, Frank

514

Mccoy, James

515

McCray, Vera

516

McCullough, Barbara

517

McCullough, Carnetta

Sit

McCullough, Claudette

519

McCullough, James

520

McCullough, John

521

McCullough, Mary

522

McEwen, George Jr

523

McEwen, Sandra

524

McFadden, John

525

McFadden, William

526

Mcpadden,Robert

527

Mcgadden, John

528

McGee, Nelson

529

McGill, Abertha

530

McGill, Andrew

531

McGill, Elizabeth

532

McGill, Karen

533

McKinley, Marlene

534

McNairy, Robert

535

Mcroy, Huey

536

Melson, Doreen

537

Mencel, Teresa

538

Meney, Daphne

539

Michaux, Lydia

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584

Middleßrook, Barbara Miles, Jannie Miller, Barbara Miller, Bernice Miller, Donna Miller, Prince/Delilah (deceased) Miller, Sanders Miller, William Shirley Mister, Charlie Mae Mitchell, Ida Mobley, Catherine Mond, Melvin Monroe, Debris Monroe, Jimmy Moore, Alethia Moore, Eric Moore, Eva Moore, Jimmy Moore, Lenora Moore, M. Mary Moorehead, Eria Morris, Delois Mosley, Francina Moss, Sr. Julius Moss, Wilfred Mostiller, Dennis Moultrie, Nancy Mouzon, Ronald Moyd, Margaret Moyd, Melvin Moyd, Neil Muir, Nancy Murray, Mary Murray, Pearl Murray, Tanya Murray, Willie Myers, Rosemary Myle, Donna Neesmith, Sam Nelson, Donovan Nelson, Patricia Nembhart, Damus Nero, Vivan Nesmith, Aaron Nesmith, Jannie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629

Nesmith, Maureen Nesmith, Sam Nesmith, Troy Nicholson, Donna Norman, Dora Oliver, Betty Oneal, James Overton, Viola Owens, Daisy Owens, Fanny Owens, Nellie Pachocco, Deborah Pain, Debra Panoblee, R. Paradia, Linda Pardia, Linda Parker, Abraham Parks, B. Willie Parnell, Leroy Parris, Sidney Parson, Lottie Patterson, Vanessa Payne, Claudette Payne, Deborah Pendleton, Gregory Pendleton, Terone Pendleton,Lizzie Perry, James H. Perrymon, Annie Peterson, Alvin Pevt, Brenda Phillips, Clive Phillips, Gertrude Pickett, Emma Plummer, Kevin Poinsetter, Gwendolyn Pointer, Barbara Pointer, Tyress (Deceased) Porchea, Silas Porter, Dorothy Powell, Pricilla Prasinos, Tasia Pride, James Pridgey, Lindsay Pringle, Noralean

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674

Prior, Ella
Proctor, Willie Quarles, Valerie Rainge, Annie Raliegh, Jerome Randle, Andrea Randolph, Barbara Randolph, David Randolph, Jacqueline Randolph, James
Ravenell, Jessie Rawlin, David Rawls, Ethel Reaves, Derrich Reaves, Doretha Reaves, Geraldine Reaves, Mose Reed, Alfonzie Reed, Minnie Rhabb, Hampton Rhodes, Leo Rhond, James Ricci, Dora Rice, Carrie Rice, Harold Richardson, Hazel Ridley, Mary Rid lev, Patricia
Ridley, Willie Riveria, Wilma Robert, Melvin Roberts, Artiville Roberts, Doris Roberts, Melvin Robinson, Albert Robinson, Bernard Robinson, Gloria Robinson, Jerome Robinson, Mary Robinson, Verdell Rodrigus, Jose Rogers, Dorothy T. Rogers, Hattie B. Rollins, Lois Rollins, Lorraine

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719

Rollins, Malease Rollins, Norman (deceased) Romano, Mary Rose, James
Ross, Rosa
Rudd, Whit
Rutler, Cherry Sam, Pearlina Sanders, Luther SandIer, Issac Sandlin, June Sapp, Margaret Saulberry, James Scott, Bessie Scott, Clausius Scott, David Scott, Janice Scott, Maria Scott, Sam Searight, Barbara Searight, Gloria Session, Aretha Sharif, Hameed Sharon Hamilton Shaw, Caherine Sheppard, Loddie Sheree, Gordon Shipman, Vick Shufelt, Nancy Simmas, Lulu Simmions, Dorothy Simmions, Isaiah Simmions, Timothy Simmons, Amos Simmons, George Simmons, Leroy Simmons, Mae Simmons, Terry Simpson, Delores Simpson, Kamron Simpson, Stephen Sims, Shannon Singletary, Olin Singletary, Robert Singletary, Timothy

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764

Singleton, Glynis L. Singleton, Mamie Sinkler, Carrrie Sission, Charlie Slater, Braiman Slater, Carolyne (coley) Slater, Dwight Slater, Forrest Slater, Tracy Slaton, Ida Mae Smally, Mary Smith, Alfred Smith, Audria Smith, Delores Smith, Donna Smith, Eudean Smith, Eugene Smith, Harry Smith, Harvey Smith, James A. Jr. Smith, James O. Smith, Jean Smith, Johnnie Smith, Joseph Smith, Josephine Smith, Leoper Smith, Linda Smith, Menan Smith, Micheal Smith, Minna Smith, Priscilla Smith, Rebecca Smith, Ruby Smith, Thelma - #1 Smith, Thelma - #2 Smith, Victor SnaIl, Roy
Snowden, Mary L
Snowden, Robert Soles, Norma Spana - Pope, Janice Spears, Leonard Steam, Mildred Stokes, Shirley Stokes, Willie Annie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

765

Stone, Virginia

766

Streeter, Dave

767

Stuckey, Juanita

768

Swan, Fred

769

Swan, Michael

770

Swank, Louis

771

taylor, George

772

Taylor, James E.

773

Terrell, Harold

774

Tharess, Linda

775

These, Diane

776

Thomas, Abraham

777

Thomas, Cecilia

778

Thomas, Claudeta

779

Thomas, Dorothy

780

Thomas, Glen

781

Thomas, Harris Jr.

782

Thomas, Hattie

783

Thomas, Henriann

784

Thomas, Jimmie (deceased)

785

Thomas, Marshall

786

Thomas, Mattie

787

Thomas, Rebecca

788

Thomas, Robert

789

Thomas, Rosa L.

790

Thomas, Rosetta

791

Thompson, Cheryl

792

Thompson, Gary

793

Thompson, Samuel

794

Thornton, Jack

795

Thornton, Janie

796

Thorton, Elizabeth

797

Tisdale, Jerome

798

Tisdale, Marg

799

Tisdale, Mary

800

Tisdale, Virginia

801

Titus, Cure Dorothy

802

Trammell, Daisy

803

Truesdale, Robin

804

Tucker, Mattie

805

Tucker, Phillis

806

Tucker, Willie

807

Tuggles, Mary

808

Turner, Mattie

809

Turner, Mildred

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854

Turner, Olin Turner, Wayne Vallon, Rachel Vanderhorst, Edith VanHoose, Fancy VanHorn, Angelina VanHorn, Norma Vernda, Willis Viverette, Navkersand Wade, Engene Walker, Abel Walker, Adolphus Walker, Cornell Walker, Essie Walker, Florine Walker, George Walker, Ronnie Walker, Rosetta WaIler, Janet WaIler, Thelma G. WaIler, Wade Walter, Edward Walters, Daniel Walters, Evelyn Walters, Henry Walters, Lori Ward, Vera Warren, Theresa Washington, Albert Washington, Arthur Washington, Christopher Washington, Frankie Washington, Gus Washington, Lillie Watson, Betty Watts, Brenda Webb, Beverly Webb, Mary Webb, Ozell Webler, Dixie Weekly, Verna Wells, Mae O Wendy, Springer Wheaton, Carolyn White, Donald

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

855

white, Elizabeth

856

Whitfield-Finley, Judith

857

Wiggins, John

858

Wiggins, Kenneth

859

wilbern, Davis

860

Wilburn/Mannig- Juanita

861

Wilcox, Betty R.

862

wilcox, Martha

863

William M. Lulu

864

William, Terry

865

Williams, Bridgett

866

williams, Christine S.

867

williams, Eddie

868

Williams, Edna

869

Williams, Edward

870

Williams, Gary

871

williams, Helen

872

Williams, Jonathan

873

Williams, Katherine

874

williams, Linda

875

williams, Lula

876

Williams, Marion

877

Williams, Mary

878

Williams, Nellie

879

williams, Ruby

880

Williams, Sheila

881

williams, Shirley

882

Willoughby, Leatha

883

Wilson, Aurora

884

wilson, Curtis

885

wilson, Earlena

886

Wilson, Eddie

887

Wilson, Gloria

888

wilson, Levern

889

Wilson, Maggie

890

Wilson, Phylis

891

wilson, Rose

892

Wilson, Sherman

893

Wilson, Sondra

894

wimbush, Oscar

895

Wolson, Ester

896

worrell, Albertha

897

worth, Gwendolyn

898

Worthy, Darryl

899

wright, Bernice

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

900

Wyatt, Dorothy

901

Yelder, Betty

902

Young, Cornell

903

Young, Deborah

904

Young, Julian

905

Young, Larue

906

Young, Willie

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

EXHIBIT C
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAVIS et at, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
- vs -
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant.

6:04-C V-06098-CJS(F)
Seulement Agreement

ALSTON et at, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
- vs -
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant.

07-CV-6512
Settlement Agreement

THIS IS A NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.
YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO MONEY FROM THIS SETTLEMENT.
TO: All African-American individuals employed by Kodak in the United States for at least one day between January 1, 1999 and May 18, 2006 (the "Class"), excluding: 1) internslco-ops; 2) individuals who were Kodak officers or executives and 3) individuals who previously entered into individual releases (other than or in addition to TAP or ADR releases) as part of individual settlement agreements with Kodak.
RE: Settlement of claims arising in the above-captioned class action lawsuits.
INTRODUCTION
This Notice is being sent to you, as ordered by the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York, to advise you of the preliminary approval of the settlement of a racial discrimination class action against Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak"), arising out of the
above-captioned lawsuits. You have received this Notice because Kodak's records reflect that you are African American and were employed by Kodak between January 1, 1999 and May 18, 2006, subject to the definition above, and therefore you are a Class Member in the proposed settlement of this lawsuit. The purpose of this Notice is to provide you with a summary of the
proposed seulement, and to advise you of your rights with respect to the proposed seulement.
Your rights may be affected by the legal proceedings in this action.
IMPORTANT DEADLINES
To participate in the monetary relief portion of the seulement, you do not have to do anything. All Class Members are automatically entitled to a monetary payment.
If you want to exclude yourself from the settlement (that is, not receive any
money from the seulement, and not be bound by the seulement), you must mail an opt-out statement pursuant to the instructions on Page 9 to the Claims Administrator post-marked by [DATE OF OPT-OUT DEADLIINEI.
If you choose not to exclude yourself from the Seulement, but if you want to
ob] ect to the settlement, or some part of the seulement, you must mail your written objection pursuant to the instructions on Page 9 to the Claims Administrator post-marked by [DATE OF OBJECTION DEADLINE].
2
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

SUMMARY OF LITIGATION
The Plaintiffs (i.e., the people who filed this lawsuit), claim that Kodak discriminated against African American employees in their employment, including with respect to pay, promotions, performance appraisals, initial job assignments, and layoffs, the creation of a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation when African American employees complained about racial discrimination. Kodak denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims alleged in this lawsuit and this Settlement is in no way an admission by Kodak that it engaged in any unlawful behavior.
LITIGATION AND SETTLEMENT BACKGROUND
In the late 1990s, certain African American employees of Kodak filed charges of
discrimination against Kodak with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"), and the New York Division of Human Rights. On July 30, 2004, Plaintiffs in Davis, et al. y. Eastman Kodak Company, Civil Action No. 6:04-cv-06098, including Employees Committed for Justice (the "ECJ"), an organization of African American
current and former employees of Kodak, and individual Plaintiffs Courtney Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Victor Smith, Edna
Williams, and Olin Singletary (now deceased), filed class action allegations against Kodak in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
Thereafter, the parties began conducting discovery. The parties exchanged and responded to written discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for production.
Kodak produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents as well as human resource data,
and the parties retained expert labor economists and statisticians to analyze the information provided. Collectively, the parties and third party witnesses in this case produced and reviewed 610,138 pages of documents. The Parties also took or defended fifty-six depositions that took seventy-six days to complete. The Court also permitted the parties to engage in extensive expert discovery including depositions of all of the expert witnesses retained by both sides.
After discovery, the parties engaged in mediation to explore possible resolution of this matter. Under the supervision of an experienced mediator, the Parties engaged in settlement negotiations that resulted in the agreement to seule this action as reflected in this Notice of Class
Action Seulement and the underlying Settlement Agreement. The discovery described above permitted the Parties to reliably assess the merits of their respective positions and to reach a fair and equitable agreement.
The Settlement Agreement also resolves all claims alleged in Aiston, et aL y. Eastman Kodak Company, Civil Action No. 07-cv-6512, pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, in which plaintiffs Gladys Alston, Thomas Gainey and Carrie
Rice brought claims on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees who had signed a release of claims in connection with their receipt of severance benefits pursuant to a Kodak Termination Allowance Plan ("TAP"), as well as a subclass of all African American employees, who, in addition to signing the TAP Release, also signed a release relating to theft participation
in the Kodak Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") Peer Review Process.
3
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Based upon their investigation, the parties and their counsel have concluded that the
terms of the proposed settlement are fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. In reaching this conclusion, Class Counsel have analyzed the benefits of the settlement and the risk of an unfavorable outcome, as well as the expense and length of continued
proceedings necessary to prosecute this action. Kodak has agreed to these seulement terms because it wishes to avoid further costly, disruptive, and time-consuming litigation, and desires
to obtain complete and final settlement of the claims of the Plaintiffs and Class Members.
V. SUMMARY OF TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Pursuant to the proposed Settlement Agreement, Kodak has agreed to pay $21,376,500.00 to resolve the Class Action (the "Settlement Fund"), which will be distributed as follows:
From the Settlement Fund, the twelve named Plaintiffs (Courtney Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Victor Smith, Edna Williams, Gladys Alston, Thomas Gainey, and Carrie Rice, and the
estate of Olin Singletary), will each receive a service award of $75,000.00 (for a total of $900,000.00) to compensate them for theft time involved in filing and prosecuting this lawsuit on behalf of the Class. In addition, ECJ Board Members Mary Dukes and Rutha Killings, and each of the following thirteen individuals who submitted declarations in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and were subject to being deposed (Andrew Gissendanner, Artiville Roberts, J.D. Bonham, Catherine Cliff, Abraham Cyrus, Thaddeus Drains, John Graham,
Cleveland Brown, Raymond Carter, Garland Lockett, Sharon Magnolia, Debris Monroe, and Cornell Walker), will each receive a service award in the amount of $5,000.00 to compensate them for their time and expenses on behalf of the Class (for a total of $75,000.00). In addition, a total gross amount of $453,000.00 shall be allocated to pay ECJ members who are current or former Kodak employees a payment of up to $500.00 per person for reimbursement of their time and
expenses in participating in the ECJ, with any remainder being donated directly to ECJ.
Class Counsel will petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs from the Settlement Fund. Specifically, Class Counsel will request an award of attorneys' fees constituting approximately 37.8% of the monetary portion of the settlement ($8,074,054.16), and reimbursement of their out-of-pocket litigation
expenses which are currently $1,625,945.84.
Costs of providing this notice to the Class and administering the seulement, not to exceed $140,000.00 will also be paid from the Seulement Fund.
From the Seulement Fund, a total gross amount of up to $453,000.00 shall be used to compensate the Labor Economists/Statisticians and Industrial Psychologist (collectively, the "Experts") for their time and expenses in connection with their work described in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of the Settlement
4
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Agreement, and to implement the programmatic reliefprovisions set forth in subparagraphs of Section 7 of the Settlement Agreement.
The amount of $9,655,500.00 shall be paid to the Class Members as follows:
Category A: for each Class Member who signed a release of claims in connection with Kodak's TAP program, he/she shall each receive $1,000.00. There are 1,180 Seulement Class Members in this category. The total amount allocated for this group is $1,180,000.00.
Category B: for each Class Member who executed an ADR release but not a TAP release, he/she shall each receive $2,250.00. There are 79 Class Members in this category. The total amount allocated for this group is $177,750.00.
Category C: for each Class Member who did not execute either a TAP or ADR release, and who worked at least six (6) months or more for Kodak, he/she shall each receive a minimum of $3,000.00 plus an amount proportionate to the number ofweeks he/she worked for Kodak as reflected in Kodak' s electronic records provided in this litigation. For each Class Member who did not execute either a TAP or ADR release, and who worked less than six (6) months or more for Kodak, he/she shall each receive $1,000.00. There are 1762 Class Members in Category C. The total amount allocated for this group is $8,297,750.00.
In addition, Kodak has agreed to be bound by the seulement for a period of four years,
and has agreed, among other things, to the following:
Kodak will continue to maintain and enforce its existing non-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies designed to assure equal employment opportunity for its employees.
Kodak will continue to enforce its policy of not knowingly maintaining or enacting any policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against any Settlement Class Member or other African American employee on the basis of race.
Kodak will not retaliate against any Seulement Class Member or other African American employee because he or she: (1) complained of or opposed discrimination on the basis of race at Kodak; (2) testified, furnished information or participated in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing, whether in connection with this lawsuit or any other complaint of racial discrimination at Kodak that may be asserted in the future; or (3) sought and/or received monetary and/or non-monetary relief pursuant to this Seulement.
5
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Kodak will retain an Industrial Psychologist to assist it in reviewing, enhancing, developing, and/or recommending policies and practices designed to reinforce Kodak' s equal opportunity employment policies and practices with regard to compensation, performance evaluations, promotions, and job assignments.
Kodak will retain two Labor Economists/Statisticians to study existing
disparate impact analyses ofpractices relating to annual evaluations, pay and
promotion decisions and to make recommendations to improve those analyses.
Kodak will develop ifirther enhancements to its existing equal opportunity and diversity training, which may include conducting new training sessions
designed to further enhance the effectiveness of Kodak's training programs The goal of these enhancements is to continue to ensure that all supervisors
understand that it is their responsibility and obligation to report and respond to any alleged violations of Kodak's equal opportunity policies. Within one year of the settlement, Kodak will provide Class Counsel with a written summary of its efforts to expand and enhance its training programs.
Kodak will continue to maintain and enforce its equal opportunity complaint
procedures for violations ofthose policies, and shall enhance its existing equal
opportunity training to place even greater emphasis on its complaint procedures and every employee's obligation to identif, potential violations of the Kodak's EOE policies by utilizing the complaint procedures.
Kodak will develop a database or spreadsheet to track all complaints of discrimination at Kodak and the resolution/status of such complaints.
Kodak will empower its External Diversity Advisory Panel to serve as the compliance panel for this Settlement (to ensure that the seulement agreement is followed). The ECJ will be able to recommend two individuals to work with the External Diversity Advisory Panel for this purpose.
lo. No later than thirty (30) days after the Final Approval date, Kodak will provide to each if its current employees in the United States a written communication that reflects the Company's commitment to diversity, and equal employment opportunity. At least once annually thereafter during the term of this Agreement, Kodak shall provide a similar communication to each of its then current employees in the United States. The communications will be signed and issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Kodak.
VI. YOUR INDIVIDUAL PAYMENT
Kodak's records indicate that you are in Category INSERT above, and therefore will receive the following estimated amount from this settlement.
[IF CATEGORY A OR B, INSERT AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED IN BOX]
6
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

[IF CATEGORY C, THEN USE SECTION BELOW].

Because you are a member of Category C, above, your monetaiy award from this

settlement will be based in part on the total number of weeks you worked at Kodak. Kodak' s

records indicate that you were employed during this time period for a total of weeks. As a

result, your estimated Settlement Award is $

. This is an estimate. The actual

amount may vary.

Therefore, your total estimated award is the following:

[IN A SEPARATE BOX, ALSO INCLUDE SERVICE AWARDS AS APPLICABLE
- AND ECJ PAYMENTS AS APPLICABLE AND THEN PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED
TOTAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR TO INSERT THIS SECTION]

If you disagree with Kodak's records and believe that the information shown above is
incorrect, you may mail supporting documentation to the Claims Administrator to support your dispute to the address provided below. For your explanation and documentation to be considered, they must be postmarked by DATE. In the event of a dispute about the dates you worked, the Claims Administrator will review Kodak's records and your records and will resolve the dispute. It is presumed that Kodak's electronic records are accurate and absent contrary documentation showing an error, the Claims Administrator will rely upon those records.

iNSERT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS.

VIL. TAXES ON AMOUNTS PAID TO CLASS MEMBERS

The monies payable to Class Members and Class Representatives, including any service awards, will be allocated in the following maimer: 30% of the payment each receives will be
allocated in settlement of their claims for back pay or lost wages; 50% will be allocated in settlement of theft claims for compensatory and punitive damages, including emotional distress;
and 20% will be allocated as interest. The Claims Administrator will withhold from the back
pay portion of each payment all applicable taxes under federal, state and/or local laws. The
Claims Administrator will ensure that such monies withheld are paid to the appropriate authorities for each Class Member and Class Representative and will issue IRS Forms W-2 and 1099 for the amounts reportable on each Form. Any amounts designated as interest shall not be subject to withholding and shall be reported, if required, to the IRS on Form 1099-INT.
VIII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS

If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, then all Class Members who do not opt out will release Kodak pursuant to Paragraph 1.17 and Section IX ofthe Seulement
Agreement. When claims are "released" it means that a person covered by the release cannot sue
Kodak for any of the claims that are covered by the release as set forth in Paragraph 1.17 of the
Settlement Agreement.

7
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Specifically, pursuant to paragraph 1.17 and Section IX of the Settlement, you will be releasing any and all claims of whatever nature, known or unknown, that you may have against Kodak, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and in the case of all such entities, their respective past and present owners, representatives, officers, directors, attorneys, agents, employees, insurers, successors and assigns, relating to or arising out of the same transactions, series of connected transactions, occurrences or nucleus of operative facts that form the basis of the claims that were or could have been asserted in (a) Davis et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04CV-06098, including all pending claims on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and (b) Aiston et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 07-CV-6512, which encompasses the state law action originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The release includes and covers without limitation all actions or omissions occurring through the Final Approval Date of this Seulement and all claims known or unknown for prior or past discriminatory actions outside any liability period, subject to the provisions in the Settlement Agreement. Specifically included in the release are any and all employment discrimination claims or benefits claims relating to or arising out of the same transactions, series of connected transactions, occurrences or nucleus of operative facts that form the basis of the claims that were or could have been asserted in (a) Davis et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04-CV-06098, including all pending claims on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and (b) Aiston et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 07-CV-6512, which encompasses the state law action originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, including but not limited to, claims of alleged employment discrimination or benefits claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §* 621 et seq. ("ADEA"), the New York Human Rights Law, § 296 et al., and the Municipal Code of the City of Rochester, § 63-1 et al., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ("ERISA") (except for vested benefits otherwise entitled), and any other federal, state, or local statutes, common law, or regulation. Furthermore, the Release includes all claims for any and all common law claims for fraud, duress, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement or any other state, local or federal claim relating to or arising from any and all claims relating to or arising out of the same transactions, series of connected transactions, occurrences or nucleus of operative facts that form the basis of the claims that were or could have been asserted in (a) Davis et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04CV-06098, including all pending claims on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, and (b) Aiston et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 07-CV-6512, which
encompasses the state law action originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Western District ofNew York, including any such claims relating to severance or termination allowance payments and/or relating in any way to Kodak' s Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") Peer
Review Process. Furthermore, the Release includes all claims for monetary damages, injunctive, declaratory or equitable relief, and costs and attorneys' fees, whether arising under Title VII, Section 1981 or under any other federal, state, local or common laws or regulations relating to or
arising out of the same transactions, series of connected transactions, occurrences or nucleus of operative facts that form the basis of the claims that were or could have been asserted in (a)
Davis et al y. Eastman Kodak Co., 6:04-CV-06098, including all pending claims on appeal
8
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and (b) Aiston et al y. Eastman
Kodak Co., 07-CV-6512, which encompasses the state law action originally filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Nothing in the Settlement
Agreement shall affect or release any existing or potential workers' compensation claim you may
have.

CAN I OPT OUT OR ASK TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS SETTLEMENT'

If you want to opt out or exclude yourself from this settlement, you must send a letter
requesting exclusion to [INSERT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AND ADDRESS]. Your exclusion request must be postmarked by [DATE OF OPT-OUT DEADLINEI. The postmark date of the mailing envelope shall be the exclusive means used to determine whether a request for exclusion (opt-out) has been timely submitted. The request for exclusion must be signed by the Class Member who seeks to opt out and must contain their name, address and telephone number. No opt-out request may be made on behalf of a group of Class Members.

If you exclude yourself from this settlement, you will not be eligible to receive any money or be bound by this Seulement.

THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

Every class action must be approved by the court that presided over the class action

lawsuit. Thus far, the Court has only decided that the proposed settlement may be fair and,

therefore, justifies the distribution of this Notice of Class Action Settlement. In order to decide

whether to give final approval to the proposed settlement, the Court will consider related papers

and comments submitted by the parties or others and hold a hearing in open court. A Final

Fairness Hearing will be held on July 1, 2009, at

, in the Courtroom of United

States Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman, United States District Court, Western District of

New York, 2330 United States Courthouse, 100 State Street, Rochester, NY 14614. You may,

but are not required to attend this hearing. You may also enter an appearance in the case through

your own attorney, if you so desire.

If you do not exclude yourself from this Settlement, you may submit any objections to the
proposed settlement in writing. For any such written objections to be considered, they must be
mailed to [INSERT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AND ADDRESS], and postmarked by
[INSERT DATE]. Any notice of objection must state the basis for the objection. Class Members who fail to make objections in the manner specified above shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall be foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or
otherwise) to the Settlement Agreement. Please do not send any comments directly to the Court
or attempt to reach the Judge in person. You may review a copy of the Settlement Agreement at the Clerk's Office at the Court (100 State Street, Rochester, NY 14614), or online at
www.bergermontague.com.

Ifyou have any questions concerning this settlement, you may contact the Claims
Administrator, as follows:

9

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

INSERT You may also contact Class Counsel, as follows:
SHANON J. CARSON, ESQ. (scarson(4bm.net) BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 JAN BARTELLI, ESQ. (jbartel1igarwingerstein.com) GARWIN, GERSTEIN & FISHER, L.L.P. 1501 Broadway, Suite 1416 New York, New York 10036 Tel.: 212-398-0055 CLAYBORNE E. CHAVERS, ESQ. (cbavlaw@comcast.net) THE CHAVERS LAW FIRM, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 756-4820
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT Is! HON. JONATHAN W. FELDMAN
10
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

EXHIBIT D
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Standby Statementf Website Posting
PLAINTIFFS AND EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY ANNOUNCE SETTLEMENT OF RACE DISCRIMINATION CLASS ACTION
Eastman Kodak Company and Employees Committed for Justice, an organization of African American current and former employees of Kodak, jointly announce that they have
reached an agreement to settle their pending litigation. The case, Davis, et at y. Eastman Kodak
Company, Civil Action No. 6:04-cv-06098, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York on July 30, 2004, and originates from complaints of racial
discrimination filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC) in the late 1990's. The settlement also resolves claims made in a related case, Aiston, et al. y. Eastman Kodak Company, Civil Action No. 07-cv-6512, which is also pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
In achieving this settlement, all parties have agreed to completely resolve the issues between them and to dismiss all pending legal actions. All parties have also recognized that the
settlement does not suggest any wrongdoing on the part of Kodak. Under the terms of the seulement agreement, Kodak will establish a settlement ifind of
$21.4 million that will be used for payments to the plaintiffs and class members, as well as attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and claims administration costs. Kodak, consistent with its
commitment to continuous improvement of its highly regarded diversity and inclusion practices, has also agreed to conduct an examination of its policies relating to certain employment practices
and to engage outside experts who will make recommendations for improvement. Kodak, Employees Committed for Justice and the other named plaintiffs believe that this
settlement represents a resolution of mutual interest. In arriving at the seulement, the parties took into account the risk of further litigation; including the potential for significant delay as well
as the potential for further lengthy and expensive legal proceedings.
About Employees Committed for Justice, the Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel Employees Committed for Justice is an organization of African American current and
former employees of Kodak. The other named plintiffs in this litigation include Courtney
Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Victor
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

Smith, Edna Williams, Gladys Alston, Thomas Gainey, Carrie Rice, and the Estate of Olin
Singletary. Employees Committed for Justice and the other plaintiffs in this litigation are
represented by co-lead counsel, Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., Bruce Gerstein and Jan Bartelli of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, and Clay Chavers of The Chavers Law Firm, P.C.
Berger & Montague, P.C. is a national class action law fini consisting of over 60 attorneys who represent plaintiffs in complex litigation. Shanon Carson is the Chair of the finn's
Employment Law Group, which has extensive experience in representing employees in class and collective action litigation. Berger & Montague, P.C. has played lead roles in major cases for
almost 40 years resulting in recoveries of billions of dollars for its clients and the classes they
represent. On the web: www.bergermontague.com.
Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP is well known nationwide as a champion of the rights of
small businesses, investors, consumers and employees in complex class action litigation. The
firm's employment practice focuses on litigation on behalf of employees and also includes class and collective actions brought on behalf of plaintiffs under federal and state laws. On the web:
www.garwingerstein.com. The Chavers Law Firm, P.C., a minority owned law firm based in Washington, DC,
specializes in civil rights and business representation. For over thirty years, Clay Chavers has worked with companies and non-profit organizations on civil rights issues, to ensure diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity. On the web: www.chavlawfinn.com.
About Kodak Kodak is a nationally recognized leader in diversity and human resources best practices.
The company is committed to creating and maintaining an inclusive workplace in which all employees are valued, treated fairly and can contribute to their full potential. Learn more about Kodak' s diversity practices at: http://www.kodak.comlgloballenlcorp/diversitv/index.ihtml.
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAVIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
- vs -
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:04-CV-06098-CJS(F)
ORJ)ER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

ALSTON, et aL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
- vs -
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 07-CV-6512
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court's review of the proposed Settlement Agreement and exhibits
thereto, and the Court having held a preliminary fairness hearing on May 19, 2009 and considered the arguments of counsel and the merits of the settlement; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as being sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate, subject to the right of any Class Member to challenge the fairness,
reasonableness or adequacy ofthe Settlement Agreement and to show cause, if any exists, why a
final judgment dismissing this case and all released claims and awarding attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel, should not be entered following a Final Fairness Hearing.

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

2. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Class is preliminarily certified under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as follows:
all African-American individuals employed by Kodak in the United States for at least one day between January 1, 1999 and May 18, 2006, excluding interns/co-ops, individuals who were officers or executives, and individuals who previously entered into individual releases (other than or in addition to TAP or ADR releases) as part of individual settlement agreements with Kodak (the "Class").
Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court appoints as Class Counsel, Shanon J. Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C. and Bruce E. Gerstein and Jan Bartelli of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP.
Class Counsel shall file their motion in support of an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses by August 11, 2009.
Class Counsel shall file papers in support of Final Approval of the Settlement
Agreement by August 20, 2009. A Final Fairness Hearing shall take place on September 15, 2009 at 10:00 a'm.,
before the Honorable Jonathan W. Feldman, United States Magistrate Judge, United States Courthouse, 100 State Street, Rochester, New York 14614, to determine: (a) whether the
proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court pursuant to
Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) whether the judgment as provided in the
Settlement Agreement should be entered; and (c) whether the Court should grant final approval
with respect to the awarding of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel. The Court approves, as to form and manner of notice, the Notice of Class Action
Settlement (the "Notice"), attached as Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement. The Parties are
2
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

directed to mail the Notice to the Class pursuant to the Settlement Agreement following the entry

of this Order.

Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP is hereby appointed to be the Claims

Administrator and shall perform the duties set forth in the Seulement Agreement.

As of the date hereof all discovery and other proceedings in this case are stayed

until further order of this Court, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement

Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this

day of

2009.

- V
'JONATHAN WW. FEFTLfDlMMAN UNITED STAATTEES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

 
 Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 1 of 40

WILLIAM G. BAUER WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP 700 Crossroads Building 2 State Street Rochester, NY 14614 Tel: (585) 987-2800 Fax: (585) 454-3968
CLAYBORNE E. CHAVERS SELIM ABLO THE CHAVERS LAW FIRM, P.C. 1776 Eye Street, N.W. 9th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 756-4820 Fax: (202) 756-1301

STEPHEN A. WHINSTON WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, III SHANON J. CARSON BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-3053
BRUCE E. GERSTEIN BRETT H. CEBULASH ADAM STEINFELD GARWIN, BRONZAFT, GERSTEIN & FISHER, L.L.P. 1501 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Tel: (212) 398-0055 Fax: (212) 764-6620

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

__________________________________________

:

EMPLOYEES COMMITTED FOR JUSTICE, :

CIVIL ACTION

GLADYS ALSTON, COURTNEY DAVIS,

:

NO.: 6:04-cv-06098-CJS

CYNTHIA GAYDEN, ROBERT GIBSON,

:

JANNIE NESMITH, NORALEAN PRINGLE, :

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CARRIE RICE, MARIA SCOTT, OLIN

:

SINGLETARY and EDNA WILLIAMS,

:

, on behalf of themselves and

:

[CLASS ACTION]

all others similarly situated,

:

:

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs,

:

:

vs.

:

:

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,

:

:

Defendant.

:

__________________________________________:

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 2 of 40
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Employees Committed for Justice (the “ECJ”), an organization of past and current African American employees of Defendant Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”), and individual Plaintiffs Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary and Edna Williams (the “Individual Plaintiffs”) (the ECJ and the Individual Plaintiffs together referenced as the “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the class they seek to represent, by and through their counsel of record, bring this First Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”), against Kodak, and allege upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their own acts, and as to all other matters upon information and belief, based upon the investigation made by and through their attorneys, as follows:
II. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiffs bring this action as representatives of a class of all past, current and future African American employees of Kodak (the “Class”). The ECJ brings this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981"), for class-wide injunctive relief, and the Individual Plaintiffs bring this action under Section 1981 for class-wide injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages arising from the terms and conditions of employment imposed by Kodak on the Class. 2. Individual Plaintiffs Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Robert Gibson, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott and Olin Singletary, who have each received Right To Sue Letters from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), also assert claims against Kodak for class-wide injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages on behalf of
-2-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 3 of 40
themselves and the Class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), and the New York Human Rights Law, 15 N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq.
3. Kodak has engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimination against its African American employees. Specifically, as set forth more fully herein:
a. Discrimination in Compensation. Beginning at least as early as 1990, weekly pay rates for Caucasian employees have been consistently higher than weekly pay rates for African American employees. The net advantage for Caucasian employees, according to the EEOC, is approximately one additional wage grade. In addition, Kodak’s discrimination in pay has diminished the pension benefits available to Class members.
b. Discrimination in Promotions. African American employees are promoted at a significantly lower rate than Caucasian employees. Kodak’s failure to promote African American employees to higher levels results in a “Glass Ceiling” preventing African Americans from achieving upward advancement to senior levels at Kodak.
c. Discrimination in Wage Classifications and Job Assignments. Kodak assigns higher wage grades and step increases to Caucasian employees than it does to African American employees. Kodak also assigns better job assignments to Caucasian employees, thus allowing these employees to move ahead and obtain promotions while hindering the advancement of African American employees. Further, Kodak assigns the less desirable, “dirty,” more dangerous jobs to its African American employees, which also limits their advancement opportunities.
d. Harassment/Hostile Work Environment. Kodak maintains and/or has failed to control a continuing pattern and practice of harassment of African American employees by
-3-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 4 of 40
Caucasian employees, resulting in a hostile work environment for Kodak’s African American employees.
e. Retaliation. When African American employees of Kodak complain about the above practices and bring them to the attention of management, they are subjected to retaliation.
4. The racial disparities in compensation, promotions, job classifications and job assignments result from, inter alia, Kodak’s company-wide policy of delegating discretionary authority to managers and department supervisors to make these employment decisions. Kodak’s managers and department supervisors exercise their subjective discretion in a racially discriminatory manner that has a disparate impact on African American employees. Kodak is aware of this practice as it has existed over the years but has failed to remedy its effects. Further, management has not put in place meaningful oversight procedures to ensure that instances of racial discrimination are appropriately addressed.
5. This discrimination represents an ongoing company-wide pattern and practice, rather than a series of isolated incidents. Kodak’s written and unwritten policies and practices subject the Individual Plaintiffs and Class members who are currently employed by Kodak to ongoing discrimination and disparate treatment based on their race. Kodak’s actions constitute a continuing violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class.
6. Absent injunctive relief, Kodak’s unlawful practices will continue, to the detriment of the Class. Broad, class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief is necessary to redress Kodak’s unlawful conduct.
III. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff ECJ is an unincorporated association consisting of approximately one
-4-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 5 of 40
thousand African American current and former employees of Kodak. ECJ was founded in 2002 to bring an end to Kodak’s pattern and practice of racial discrimination and the existence at Kodak of a racially hostile work environment. ECJ is governed by an Executive Committee elected by its membership.
8. To pursue its goals and assist its members, ECJ has undertaken the following: a. attempting to negotiate, through its counsel, a remedy to the ongoing
discrimination at Kodak; b. providing information to members regarding its efforts to remedy the racial
discrimination; c. holding monthly meetings for its membership; d. organizing informational picketing outside of Kodak’s Rochester, New York,
facilities regarding the discriminatory practices and environment at Kodak; e. distributing information regarding discrimination at Kodak; f. engaging in public information activities regarding discrimination at Kodak;
and g. retaining counsel.
9. In connection with these activities, ECJ has expended funds contributed by its members. Its Executive Committee and members have expended time and energy to pursue the goals of ECJ.
10. Plaintiff Gladys Alston is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a former employee of Kodak.
-5-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 6 of 40
11. Plaintiff Courtney Davis is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of California, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a former employee of Kodak.
12. Plaintiff Cynthia Gayden is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak.
13. Plaintiff Robert Gibson is an African American male citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. He is a former employee of Kodak.
14. Plaintiff Jannie Nesmith is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak.
15. Plaintiff Noralean Pringle is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak.
16. Plaintiff Carrie Rice is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a former employee of Kodak.
17. Plaintiff Maria Scott is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak.
18. Plaintiff Olin Singletary is an African American male citizen and resident of the State
-6-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 7 of 40
of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. He is a former employee of Kodak.
19. Plaintiff Edna Williams is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak.
20. Defendant Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”), is incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its corporate headquarters located in this District at 343 State Street, Rochester, New York 14650. Founded in 1880, Kodak reported world-wide sales totaling $12.8 billion in 2002 and $13.3 billion in 2003. Kodak employs approximately 64,000 full time equivalent people, of whom approximately 35,400 full time equivalents are employed in the United States. According to Kodak, the actual number of employees may be even greater because some individuals work part-time. Most of Kodak’s employees in the United States work at its facilities in Rochester, New York.
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over claims under the New York Human Rights Law, 15. N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq. 22. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), because Kodak has its corporate headquarters, can be found and conducts business in the Western District of New York, and because acts and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the Western District of New York.
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
-7-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 8 of 40
23. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all past, present and future African American employees of Kodak (the “Class”). The Individual Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent.
24. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. It is believed by Plaintiffs that the Class numbers in the thousands.
25. There are questions of law or fact common to the Class, including, without limitation: a. whether Kodak’s common operating practices and procedures since at least
1990 discriminate against African American employees; b. whether Kodak’s policies have an adverse impact upon the Class, and, if so,
whether this impact is justified by business necessity; c. whether Kodak’s policy or practice of granting discretionary authority to its
managers and supervisors to make decisions concerning compensation, promotions, job evaluations, job classifications and job assignments negatively affects Class members;
d. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of paying African American employees less than Caucasian employees for the same work;
e. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of grooming Caucasian employees for advancement, while denying these same opportunities to African American employees;
f. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of failing to promote qualified African American employees to higher positions within the Company;
g. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of assigning lesser job classifications or wage grades to African American employees than are assigned to similarly situated Caucasian employees;
-8-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 9 of 40
h. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of making less desirable work assignments to African American employees than to Caucasian employees;
i. whether African American employees at Kodak are subject to a pattern and practice of racial harassment;
j. whether Kodak’s conduct alleged herein constitutes a hostile work environment for the Class;
k. whether Kodak has a policy and practice of retaliating against Class members who object to or who oppose Kodak’s unlawful employment practices;
l. whether equitable relief is warranted and the nature of such relief; m. whether class-wide compensatory damages are warranted; and n. whether Kodak’s conduct warrants an award of punitive damages. 26. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. The Individual Plaintiffs have been subjected to each form of the discriminatory common operating policies and practices and hostile work environment caused by Kodak. The policies and practices complained of in this Complaint affect the entire Class. 27. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have no conflict with the Class members and have retained counsel who are experienced in class action litigation and cases of this nature. 28. This action is properly maintainable under Rules 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3) because: a) Kodak has maintained an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimination on the basis of race and a hostile work environment, thereby acting or refusing to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate final injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole;
-9-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 10 of 40
and b) questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this case.
VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 29. In early 1998, a group of approximately 130 African American employees took their complaints of discriminatory compensation to the President of the Rochester Chapter of the NAACP, the Reverend Norvel Goff, who communicated the complaints to Kodak. 30. Kodak then conducted an internal wage and promotion analysis, and as a result, acknowledged a disparity in pay and promotions for African American employees in some departments. Kodak announced that it would “pay $10 million in back pay, as well as $3 million in annual raises, to correct race and gender inequalities dating to 1996.” Pursuant to this program, that Kodak publicly called the “Do The Right Thing Award,” Kodak gave some African American employees in some departments an upgrade, along with a small lump-sum payment. Other awards were made to female employees to correct gender-based pay discrepancies. 31. Hundreds of Class members who had suffered racial discrimination were not included in the “Do The Right Thing Award,” and thus, complaints against Kodak by Class members continued to mount. 32. Some Class members filed class-wide Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC. For example, in October 1999, the EEOC’s Buffalo Local Office received multiple Charges of Discrimination against Kodak, alleging, inter alia, that African American employees: 1) received unequal pay; 2) were repeatedly denied promotions; 3) were given lesser job classifications; 4) were given less desirable work assignments; 5) were subjected to a pattern and practice of ongoing
-10-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 11 of 40
harassment and a hostile work environment; and 6) were retaliated against for complaining about these practices to management.
33. Separately, Kodak established an alternative dispute resolution mechanism through discussions with Norvel Goff to address the issues raised by the African American employees who submitted complaints to Goff. Specifically, Kodak called this program, the “ADR Peer Review Process,” and Goff and Kodak agreed on African American employees to serve on five “Peer Review” panels (Panels A through E), who would hear the claims submitted through this process.
34. According to Kodak, the ADR Peer Review Process was created “for resolving conflict for individuals who have worked with Reverend Goff.” Kodak never publicized the process or made it available to all employees; rather, it was devised by Kodak to quietly deal with the claims of Goff’s constituents. As a result, it was available only to a subset of those who had been subjected to racial discrimination by Kodak.
35. Later, Dan Carp, the CEO of Kodak, would state openly that he would “always be eternally grateful to Rev. Goff for not having filed a lawsuit in 1997, because it would have brought the Company to its knees, because [Kodak was] so vulnerable.”
36. In fact, the ADR Peer Review Process did not effectively deal with or remedy Kodak’s illegal conduct, but instead, only served to exacerbate and perpetuate Kodak’s discriminatory policies and practices.
37. Complainants were told that a panel of their peers would hear their claims and reach a “final determination” that would be swiftly acted on.
38. In training provided by Kodak in late 1999, panelists were told that they were empowered to recommend back pay, a wage increase, a promotion, and/or an improvement in work
-11-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 12 of 40
conditions. Kodak documents issued to the panelists indicated that the panels would issue a “final determination” after hearing a claimant’s case, and that Kodak would implement the decision. Indeed, the panels were advised that the only changes to their “final determination” that Kodak would make would be to increase the amount they awarded. Applicants were advised that the panel “listens, discusses and decides” their claim.
39. In reality, however, Kodak ignored the panels’ “final determinations” and instead instituted whatever relief the Company deemed “appropriate.” Kodak simply used the panelists to lend an air of credence to the process that convinced complainants to utilize it and that ultimately allowed Kodak to obtain liability releases from claimants for little in return.
40. The panels began hearing claims in November 1999, based on forms submitted to Kodak by Norvel Goff. Such forms were captioned: “NAACP Kodak Employee Questionnaire, Class Action/Multiple Action/Consolidated Actions (Confidential - Litigation Preparation).” Class members who filled out this form were thus led to believe that they were participating in a class action. Further, the complainants were solicited to make a contribution to a “litigation fund to help cover the costs and disbursements of a class action suit [at] $300 or $500.” No information has ever been provided with respect to the disbursement of these funds. And, of course, no such suit was filed.
41. The panelists’ “final determination” was submitted to a “Corporate Sponsor” who was a senior Kodak official. The “Sponsor” then contacted the complainant directly with a settlement offer for his or her case. The offer would include a “Settlement Agreement, Waiver and Release” that, among other things, contained a provision stating:
Following a review by a peer Review Panel, Kodak has agreed to
-12-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 13 of 40
pay....
* * *
In return for this payment, Claimant agrees to release Kodak from, and waive all claims or causes of action relating to Claimant’s employment or termination of Claimant’s employment, including but not limited to any claims for discrimination that may exist under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State Human Rights Law, or any other state or federal law that may apply (“claims”). In addition, Claimant agrees that he or she will not sue Kodak or any current or former employee of Kodak upon such claims or based upon facts which Claimant raised or could have raised to support such claims. In the event Claimant brings a lawsuit or commences other legal proceedings, Claimant agrees to return all payments received pursuant to this agreement. By signing this agreement, Claimant does not waive claims that arose after [his/her] hearing with the Peer Review Panel on [DATE].
42. The panelists and the complainants did not know that the settlement offer made
directly by Kodak did not in fact communicate the “final determination” of the Peer Review panels.
Kodak failed to implement the “final determinations” of the panels.
43. The offers communicated by the “Corporate Sponsors,” including the language of the
release, were carefully couched to lead the complainant to believe that the determination was the
decision of the Peer Review panel rather than Kodak.
44. In inducing Class members to execute releases pursuant to the ADR Peer Review
Process, Kodak made materially misleading representations as set forth above.
45. Subsequently, Norvel Goff and Joe Brown, the Vice President of the Rochester
Chapter of the NAACP, accepted employment and other gratuities from Kodak. Goff currently sits
on Kodak’s “Diversity Board” and Brown is a Manager at the Company.
46. The entire ADR Peer Review Process represented a policy, practice or procedure that
-13-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 14 of 40
perpetuated and continued the pattern and practice of race discrimination in which Kodak engaged. 47. While Kodak engaged in the ADR Peer Review Process, the EEOC was busy
conducting an extensive investigation of the Charges of Discrimination that were filed in October 1999 and thereafter. This investigation spanned almost four-and-a-half years, culminating in multiple Letters of Determination issued on February 6, 2004 and thereafter.
48. The EEOC concluded: a. “weekly pay rates for white employees were consistently higher, on average,
than weekly pay rates for black employees”; b. Kodak’s “Do The Right Thing Award” was implemented in an inadequate and
inconsistent manner, and as a result, the mean pay differential between Kodak’s Caucasian and African American employees remained “statistically significant”;
c. “white employees, on average, occupy higher wage grades than black employees”; “[t]he net advantage for white employees is approximately one additional wage grade”;
d. “black employees are promoted at a rate lower than white employees”; e. the Do The Right Thing Award program did not rectify Kodak’s discriminatory conduct with respect to promotions; f. with regard to job assignments, Caucasian employees at Kodak are consistently given higher-end job assignments that allowed them to move ahead, while African American employees are given less desirable, “dirty,” more dangerous tasks; g. Kodak has maintained a work environment that is hostile to its African American employees;
-14-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 15 of 40
h. prior to 1999, Kodak had no consistent policy to address harassment complaints, that often went unanswered;
i. Kodak’s ADR Peer Review Process failed to resolve the issues that were presented to it, because Kodak failed to take the appropriate remedial action recommended by the Panel, and consequently, “egregious incidents of harassment continue today”; and
j. Kodak engages in and tolerates a practice of retaliation against African American employees who participate in protected activities in attempting to enforce their rights under the federal civil rights laws, including African American employees who participated as panelists in the ADR Peer Review Process.
49. Kodak employees’ compensation depends upon the wage grade to which they are assigned.
50. Within each wage grade there is a minimum, middle and maximum pay. Kodak’s compensation department determines how much compensation will be allocated to a specific department and then informs that department’s supervisor. The supervisors are then given discretion to decide how the money will be allocated between the employees of the department, i.e., how much of a raise, if any, each employee will receive. Kodak policies and practices provide for a number of factors to be employed, including an employee’s performance appraisals, attendance, training at Kodak and education. This compensation system allows excessive managerial discretion and assigns significant weight to Kodak’s unreliable and discriminatory evaluation system, leading to discrimination on the basis of race.
51. Because Class members received less money within a specific wage grade, it was possible, and often did occur, that a Caucasian employee in a lower wage grade would be paid more
-15-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 16 of 40
than a similarly situated African American employee placed in a higher wage grade. The step amounts that Kodak employees are paid within a certain wage grade are the result of subjective decision-making by Kodak supervisors and managers, which policies negatively impact Class members.
52. As confirmed by the EEOC’s investigation and determination, this system allowed Kodak to perpetuate racially discriminatory practices in compensation, wage classifications, job assignments and promotions.
53. Kodak also knowingly permitted and failed to remediate persistent acts of harassment and retaliation against Class members, that have perpetuated an ongoing hostile environment.
54. Examples of harassment perpetrated against Class members include, without limitation:
a. Class Members subjected to racial epithets by Caucasian employees and supervisors -- the following are set forth as examples, and is far from an exhaustive list:
i. racist jokes; ii. “Nigger” and many variations thereof, for example, a Class member being told that “Niggers are only good for cleaning floors and toilets”; iii. referring to African Americans and/or their children as “monkeys” or “porch monkeys”; iv. Class members being told that “Blacks shouldn’t get promoted”; v. a Class member being told that they were a “good black boy”; vi. a Class member being told that “You black people should start school earlier so white people can understand you better”;
-16-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 17 of 40
vii. a Class member being told, “What are you doing over here? Stay with your own kind”;
viii. a Caucasian employee stating to other workers, “We better start to be careful on how we treat that nigger because one day he might our boss”;
ix. a Caucasian supervisor asking a Class member in front of co-workers, “What are you here for from Africa?” “Do you sleep in trees?” “Do you eat monkey food?” and “How do you know English?”;
x. a Class member was barred from attending a department meeting by his Assistant Group Leader. When asked why he couldn’t attend, the Assistant Group Leader said, “I said you couldn’t go, Nigger”;
xi. a Class member told by his supervisor that he didn’t have to worry about being a supervisor because he “was too dark to be a supervisor at Kodak”;
xii. a Caucasian employee telling a Class member that “the reason blacks have sickle cell is because they lick too many food stamps”;
xiii. referring to all African Americans as “You People”; xiv. Class members being told that “You people never come up with good ideas”. b. racist graffiti on Kodak’s walls, in Kodak’s bathrooms, on Kodak’s lockers, in Kodak’s elevators and on the sides of Kodak’s delivery trucks, including, for example, “Nigger,” “Nigger lover,” “Jigaboo,” “Jungle Bunnies,” and depictions of African Americans hanging from nooses; c. Racist documents or materials distributed, for example:
-17-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 18 of 40
i. hangman’s nooses being left on the desks of Class members or on filing cabinets;
ii. a photo of apes obviously meant to depict African Americans placed in a Class Member’s office mailbox;
iii. a racist photo of African Americans depicted as dogs posted on Kodak’s wall;
iv. a Class member finding Caucasian co-workers laughing about documents titled, “A Good Nigger Is A Dead Nigger,” and the other one referring to African Americans as “Porch Monkeys”;
v. A Caucasian employee circulating a printed joke about, “open season on coons,” and referring to “blacks as coons and killing coons because it was hunting season”; and
vi. A Caucasian employee passing around a picture of an African American person eating watermelon.
55. Further, female Class members were frequently victims of unwelcome sexual advances made by Caucasian employees and supervisors who regularly groped, touched and fondled them, particularly in Kodak’s “Dark” areas. When these Class members complained, managers would fail to take remedial action, and often appeared amused by the wrongful conduct.
56. Whenever an issue involving unlawful conduct was raised, Class members as a matter of practice were presumed by Kodak to be the ones responsible.
57. When Class members complained about these incidents, Kodak failed to take remedial action, and instead, would criticize the complainant and scrutinize their work. Conversely, Caucasian employees or supervisors who engaged in unacceptable discriminatory conduct were
-18-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 19 of 40
given numerous opportunities to correct it, or were not disciplined at all. Further, Kodak managers and supervisors were given discretion as to whether to investigate a claim of racial discrimination. As a result, such claims were not investigated adequately and remain unresolved.
58. In 2001, an African American Human Resources Director and Senior Vice President of Kodak attempted to respond to ongoing incidents of racial harassment at Kodak. A Human Resources meeting was covered to make the point that racist activity at Kodak would absolutely not be tolerated. In response, a number of long-time Caucasian employees commented, “Who the hell does she think she is?” The Kodak vice president resigned after working there less than one year.
VII. THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS 59. As alleged below, the Individual Plaintiffs have collectively suffered each of the forms of discrimination alleged herein on behalf of the Class. They have been paid less than similarly situated Caucasian employees. Among other things, this form of class-wide discrimination has reduced the pensions to which retired Class members would otherwise be entitled absent discrimination. They have received unfair performance appraisals, and been assigned lower job classifications, and lower wage grades, and have been denied opportunities for training, mentoring, promotion and advancement provided to similarly situated Caucasian employees. They have been assigned more difficult and dangerous job than their Caucasian counterparts, and they have been subjected to a continuing pattern and practice of harassment and been subjected to a ongoing racially hostile work environment. Finally, when they have complained to their supervisors and Human Resources about these practices, they have been retaliated against.
Gladys Alston 60. Ms. Alston worked for Kodak from 1979 through May 15, 2002.
-19-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 20 of 40
61. From 1979 through 1998, Kodak assigned Ms. Alston to a number of lateral positions within the Company, during which time, her wage grade increased by several grades. However, Kodak consistently paid similarly situated Caucasian employees assigned to the same wage grade as Ms. Alston, higher salaries within that grade.
62. In approximately 1998, Ms. Alston was working in the Benefits Information Department as a Benefits Information Representative, when she was informed that her position was being eliminated due to a reduction in force. However, several months later, Kodak posted job openings for five positions for Benefits Information Representatives. Ms. Alston complained to her supervisors concerning why she had been eliminated from her position under these circumstances. Kodak failed to take remedial action by providing Ms. Alston with her job back, and instead, hired five Caucasian employees to fill those positions.
63. Within a year, this scenario repeated itself when Ms. Alston was downsized from her position in the Health Imaging Department. Ms. Alston constantly met or exceeded expectations in her performance appraisals but was unable to advance within the Company. Similarly situated Caucasian employees are not treated in this fashion.
64. In approximately 2000, Kodak transferred Ms. Alston to the Human Resources Department as a Human Resources Associate (“HRA”). Ms. Alston was the only African American HRA, and suffered disparate treatment and harassment by her Caucasian co-workers. Further, because she was the only African American in the department, Ms. Alston lacked mentoring opportunities, necessary for advancement, that were available to similarly situated Caucasian employees.
65. Ms. Alston participated as a complainant in Kodak’s ADR Peer Review Process,
-20-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 21 of 40
pursuant to which, on May 14, 2001, Kodak offered her approximately $4,992 to settle her claim. When Ms. Alston told the Corporate Sponsor, Thomas Ellebie, that this was not fair, he immediately doubled the offer to $8,268. Ms. Alston refused to accept this amount as well because it was unjust and did not remedy the years of unequal pay and lack of advancement opportunity that she suffered. In response to Ms. Alston’s rejection of the offer, Mr. Ellebie, told her, “you should take this money; otherwise you won’t get a dime.”
66. On October 19, 2001, Ms. Alston filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, and on May 23, 2003, she received her notice of right to sue.
Courtney Davis 67. Plaintiff Courtney Davis worked at Kodak from August 7, 2000 through September 27, 2002. 68. She began her employment in the Human Resources Development and remained in this position until October 2001, when Kodak hired her into its Global Diversity Office, where she remained until the end of her employment. 69. Throughout her employment, Kodak paid Ms. Davis less than similarly situated Caucasian employees. In October 2001, when she joined the Global Diversity Office, Ms. Davis complained to her supervisors concerning her salary level, and was told that the situation would be addressed in January 2002. 70. In January 2002, however, Ms. Davis’ salary review was postponed until April 9, 2002, at which time she received her performance appraisal for the prior year, and was told that she would only receive a two percent raise. Ms. Davis complained to an African American supervisor, who acknowledged that Ms. Davis was underpaid, and told Ms. Davis that racially-based pay
-21-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 22 of 40
discrepancies also existed for supervisors. No remedial action was taken. 71. In August 2002, Ms. Davis told her supervisors that she had conducted a pay analysis
demonstrating that she was underpaid by between $20,000 and $30,000 per year as compared to similarly situated Caucasian employees. Again, Kodak took no remedial action.
72. Ms. Davis informed Kodak that if nothing were done, she would be forced to tender her resignation. On September 6, 2002, Ms. Davis did just that.
73. During her employment, Ms. Davis also suffered through a continuing pattern and practice of racial harassment. For example, soon after being hired, at which time Ms. Davis was 33 years old, a Caucasian employee instructed her not to speak to him until she was 40. Ms. Davis complained to her supervisor, who instead of disciplining the Caucasian employee, instructed Ms. Davis not to speak with that person.
74. Kodak also retaliated against Ms. Davis after she reported several incidents of racial harassment to her supervisors, for example, by incorporating various derogatory comments on her performance appraisal.
75. Ms. Davis filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on October 19, 2002. On August 12, 2003, the EEOC issued her notice of right to sue.
76. On November 12, 2003, Ms. Davis filed a Complaint alleging similar allegations as are set forth above in Davis v. Eastman Kodak Co., Civil Action No. C-03-05020 (JCS) (N.D. Cal.). On March 11, 2004, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California transferred Davis to this Court.
Cynthia Gayden 77. Plaintiff Cynthia Gayden has worked at Kodak from February 18, 1985 to the present.
-22-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 23 of 40
78. Ms. Gayden began her employment with Kodak as a secretary on a temporary basis before obtaining a permanent position in the Information Services (“IS”) department (Wage Grade J5). In 1990, Kodak transferred Ms. Gayden to Business Support Services (“BSS”) (Wage Grade J9), and in 1992, went to the Human Resources Department (Wage Grade J9) as an Executive Secretary.
79. During this time, Ms. Gayden was denied promotions and was assigned to lesser job classifications and wage grades than similarly situated Caucasian employees with less experience, some of whom she was asked by Kodak to train.
80. In approximately 1995, Kodak transferred Ms. Gayden to the Finance Department as an Executive Secretary to David Pollock, Kodak’s Assistant Treasurer (Wage Grade K2). In subsequent years, Ms. Gayden’s performance appraisals were excellent, and she received a wage grade increase from K2 to K4 in 1996. However, this amounted to an increase of only $12.00/week.
81. In 1998, Mr. Pollock was promoted to Treasurer. Kodak’s policy or practice was for Executive Secretaries to follow the executives for whom they worked to new positions unless there was an incumbent secretary in the position, and also to receive commensurate promotions and increases in pay. Ms. Gayden learned, however, that the administrative assistant post for Mr. Pollock’s new position was being posted, and that she would not receive the position. Similarly situated Caucasian employees at Kodak were not denied promotions and increases in compensation in this fashion. Ms. Gayden complained to Human Resources, but no remedial action was taken. In fact, her supervisors told her that indeed she was qualified for the position, but would not receive it. Instead, Ms. Gayden was asked to train the Caucasian employee eventually selected for the position, who was assigned Wage Grade K8.
-23-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 24 of 40
82. In July 2000, Ms. Gayden transferred to Kodak’s Research Laboratories as an Administrative Assistant (Wage Grade K4), and in April 2003, transferred to her current position as an Administrative Assistant in the Health Imaging Department (Wage Grade K4). In each of these position, Ms. Gayden has received less pay than her Caucasian counterparts as a result of the subjective decision-making of her supervisors.
83. Ms. Gayden did not participate in the ADR Peer Review Process because she was unaware of its existence.
Robert Gibson 84. Plaintiff Robert Gibson worked at Kodak from December 12, 1993 until December 13, 2000. 85. Mr. Gibson was hired as a two-year “supplemental” employee in the Exchange Department (Building 605) as a Shipping and Receiving Clerk (Wage Grade 5). In 1994, Kodak transferred him to a position as a Shipping Clerk (Building 601), and in 1995, transferred him again to a position as a Truck Handler in the Professional Film Dept. (Building 58). Subsequently, Mr. Gibson was assigned the position of Product Covering Operator, working in Kodak’s “Dark Room” areas. 86. Kodak did not promote Mr. Gibson from a “supplemental” employee to a permanent employee until July 1996, six months after the completion of his two-year term. During this time, similarly situated Caucasian “supplemental” employees with less seniority than Mr. Gibson, were promoted to permanent employees. Permanent employees received benefits and higher pay not available to supplemental employees. Mr. Gibson complained to his supervisor, Arturo Garza, but no remedial action was taken. Other supervisors confirmed that individual supervisors had
-24-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 25 of 40
discretion to make these kinds of employment decisions. 87. Kodak also paid Mr. Gibson a lower wage than similarly situated Caucasian
employees. In fact, Mr. Gibson remained at wage grade 5 for the entire length of his employment, during which time, similarly situated Caucasian employees received wage grade and commensurate pay increases and lump sum bonuses.
88. On or about July 16, 2000, following a back injury suffered from a heavy lifting assignment at work, Mr. Gibson took a short-term disability leave, during which time he treated for depression and anxiety caused by Kodak’s discriminatory conduct. Mr. Gibson attempted to return to work in November 2000 with a reasonable accommodation, but Kodak informed him that there were no positions available. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not treated in this fashion.
89. Kodak terminated Mr. Gibson on December 13, 2000 for the stated reason that his disability leave had expired.
90. Mr. Gibson filed a Charge of Discrimination on July 13, 2001. The EEOC issued a “for cause” determination on February 6, 2004, and a notice of right to sue on April 30, 2004.
Jannie Nesmith 91. Plaintiff Jannie Nesmith has worked at Kodak from 1980 to the present. 92. She began her employment as a Cleaner in Building Services (Building 6) (Wage Grade 6). Subsequently, Ms. Nesmith occupied positions of Mail Deliverer/Picker in Mail Services (Building 311) (Wage Grade 6), and in the Glass Shop (Building 59) (Wage Grade 6). Several years later, Kodak assigned Ms. Nesmith the position of a Packer in the Paper Production Department (Building 9), and actually decreased her wage grade from a 6 to a 5. Ms. Nesmith remained in this wage grade for approximately the next twenty years.
-25-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 26 of 40
93. During this time period, Kodak paid Ms. Nesmith less than similarly situated Caucasian employees, denied her opportunities for training and advancement within the Company, and assigned her “dirty jobs” that would not be assigned to Caucasian employees. At various times, Ms. Nesmith complained to her supervisors, all of whom were Caucasian, but no remedial action was taken.
94. Throughout her employment, Ms. Nesmith’s performance appraisals have met or exceeded expectations and she has even received “Perfect Attendance” gift certificates from Kodak.
95. In 2001, Kodak transferred Ms. Nesmith to a position as a Fork-lift Truck Driver in the Master Roll Department (Building 9). When Ms. Nesmith complained to her supervisor about not receiving a wage grade increase in approximately twenty years, the supervisor replied, “they screwed you. They have been screwing you for years.” The supervisor instructed Ms. Nesmith to report her complaint to another supervisor, who provided no relief.
96. Ms. Nesmith then went to Human Resources and spoke to a Caucasian employee in that department, who stated coldly, “You people already got enough money from Reverend Goff to make up for the money you lost from not getting your bracket change and proper raises.” Human Resources then told Ms. Nesmith that they would investigate the situation, but never did, and her wage grade remained the same. When Ms. Nesmith complained to an African American supervisor in the diversity department, that employee told her that she feared for her own job, and that “there is not much I can do.”
97. Kodak has also subjected Ms. Nesmith to a continuous and ongoing pattern and practice of racial harassment and a hostile work environment. For example, on one occasion in 2000, a Caucasian employee harassed her by stating in a meeting attended by six co-workers and a
-26-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 27 of 40
supervisor that she smelled because “she don’t take baths,” and that “it must be the soap she uses or the hair-spray that blacks use in their hair.” Instead of disciplining this employee, the supervisor laughed in front of the entire group. This employee continued to harass and degrade Ms. Nesmith throughout 2001 and 2002, and, on one occasion, even threatened to hit her with his fist.
98. Throughout 2001, Ms. Nesmith was assigned to training in the Master Roll Department. Frequently, the Trainer referred to Ms. Nesmith as “stupid” and “dumb,” embarrassing her in front of her co-workers.
99. Despite Ms. Nesmith’s frequent complaints to supervisors concerning the above examples of racial harassment, no remedial action was taken. Instead, during a meeting in 2002 to discuss these events with a Kodak Group Leader, further racially harassing comments were made. Instead of disciplining the employees responsible for the harassment, the Group Leader just laughed. In addition, one of the Caucasian employees about whom the complaints were made threatened bodily harm to Ms. Nesmith, telling her, “I used to kill a lot of people in the army.”
100. Following this meeting, Ms. Nesmith suffered a stress-related breakdown and had to be taken to Kodak’s medical department, and then to St. Mary’s Hospital.
Noralean Pringle 101. Ms. Pringle has worked at Kodak from 1977 to the present. 102. She began her employment as a secretary and receptionist (Wage Grade J9). From 1977 to 1987, she worked at Kodak’s New York City and Dayton, New Jersey offices and was transferred to the Kodak Office in Rochester, NY, as a customer service representative in 1988. While working as a customer service representative, Ms. Pringle received her first pay raise in over ten years with the Company -- to Wage Grade K2.
-27-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 28 of 40
103. Kodak gave Ms. Pringle the responsibilities of a Team Leader in the Customer Service Department in November 2000, but denied her an increase in pay. Ms. Pringle complained to her supervisors, and even went before a committee of supervisors to prove that she deserved a raise. Kodak, however, took no remedial action and did not increase Ms. Pringle’s salary.
104. Ms. Pringle did not receive an increase in her wage grade until April 2001, when it was increased from K2 to K4. However, she continued to be underpaid as compared to similarly situated Caucasian employees.
105. In March 2002, Ms. Pringle received Kodak’s Service Excellence Award -- one of the highest awards Kodak gives, but did not receive a wage grade increase.
106. During her employment, Kodak subjected Ms. Pringle to harassment and an ongoing hostile work environment, in part, by giving her unjustified poor performance appraisals to avoid having to increase her compensation. Ms. Pringle complained to Human Resources, and while they acknowledged a problem with Ms. Pringle’s supervisor, they took no remedial action.
107. Ms. Pringle participated in the ADR Peer Review Panel process. She accepted an award she believed to be unfair because she thought it was the determination of the panel that heard her claim, and would not have participated in the process had she known that Kodak could simply disregard the panel’s determinations.
108. Kodak retaliated against Ms. Pringle after she participated in the ADR Peer Review process, by, among other things, removing her from her position and replacing her with a Caucasian employee with no experience. Ms. Pringle complained to her supervisors and through Kodak’s Resolution Support Services program, but no remedial action was taken. As a result of the discrimination and retaliation, Ms. Pringle has suffered severe stress and numerous medical
-28-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 29 of 40
problems. Like many Class members, she is also fearful of additional retaliation as a result of her participation in this suit.
Carrie Rice 109. Ms. Rice worked for Kodak from 1968 until December 1, 2003. 110. She began her employment with Kodak in the Graphic Arts Department, performing production work in the “Dark Room” (Wage Grade 5). She was transferred several times in subsequent years but did not receive a pay increase. From 1974 to 1983, she worked in the Instant Film Department (“IFD”), during which time, she received one wage grade increase -- from a 5 to a 7. Ms. Rice remained at wage grade 7 for six months, at which time, Kodak reduced her wage grade to a business support code, resulting in a pay decrease. Ms. Rice remained at this wage grade until she retired from Kodak. 111. Ms. Rice often trained less experienced Caucasian employees, who were then advanced to levels above her. Conversely, in or around 1993, Kodak transferred Ms. Rice to an entry-level position, despite her twenty-five years of experience. Ms. Rice had to complain to get her job back. 112. In 1996, Ms. Rice overheard one Caucasian supervisor tell another, “I hate that black bitch,” referring to her. Caucasian supervisors often tried to blame Ms. Rice for problems caused by Caucasian employees and make her a scapegoat. 113. During this time, Ms. Rice was assigned the work of a “Planner” within her department, but was given lesser job classifications and compensation. 114. In 1997, Kodak informed Ms. Rice that her position was being eliminated. Similarly situated Caucasian employees in similar positions that Ms. Rice had trained, however, did not have
-29-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 30 of 40
their jobs “eliminated”, however, and in fact, one of those employees replaced Ms. Rice in the job she had been performing.
115. In November 1999, Ms. Rice accepted a position as an ADR Peer Review Panelist, and remained in this position until September 4, 2001. As a panel member, Ms. Rice heard numerous complaints of discriminatory treatment and made “final determinations” concerning the resolution of those complaints. Kodak failed to follow through on those “final determinations” and failed to take genuine remedial action, including on a claim presented by Ms. Rice.
116. When Ms. Rice accepted the position as an ADR Peer Review Process panelist, Kodak informed her that she could return to her former job and that her employment was guaranteed for one year after her tenure on the panel ended. Following her tenure as a panelist, Kodak retaliated against Ms. Rice by refusing to allow her to return to work, stating that it had no job for her.
117. Ms. Rice filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on April 19, 2002. The EEOC issued a “for cause” determination on February 6, 2004, and a notice of right to sue on April 30, 2004.
Maria Scott 118. Maria Scott has worked at Kodak from 1991 to the present. 119. She began her employment as an Assembler in the Apparatus Division in Department 686/Single Use Cameras (Wage Grade 1). 120. Despite positive performance appraisals that regularly met or exceeded expectations, Kodak did not advance Ms. Scott to a higher wage grade. Similarly situated Caucasian employees in the Single Use Department with the same or less experience than Ms. Scott were classified by Kodak as Wage Grade 3. Ms. Scott and other Class members in the Single Use Department were
-30-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 31 of 40
told by supervisors that Wage Grade 1 was the highest rating possible. 121. In approximately 1992, Ms. Scott complained to Human Resources about her
Caucasian supervisor who referred to all African Americans as “you people.” When the supervisor became aware of the complaint, she called Ms. Scott a “nigger.” In further retaliation, the supervisor assigned Ms. Scott “dirty” work and duties not in her job description, and changed her performance appraisal from a 7 to a 6. The 7 rating would have entitled Ms. Scott to a wage grade increase.
122. During subsequent years, Ms. Scott advised supervisors concerning Kodak’s discrimination against Class members in compensation and promotion and about the racially hostile work environment at Kodak. Supervisors labeled her an “agitator” and retaliated against her by lowering her performance appraisals.
123. On one occasion, Ms. Scott filled out an application for a promotion and gave it to her supervisor. Minutes later, Ms. Scott found the application on the floor next to a garbage can.
124. Ms. Scott trained numerous similarly situated Caucasian employees who then were advanced by Kodak to higher job classifications and wage grades, but she never received the title of “Trainer” or the pay commensurate with these responsibilities.
125. In 1996, Ms. Scott took a short-term disability leave because of stress and severe depression caused by Kodak’s illegal discriminatory conduct. She returned to work at Kodak in 1997.
126. In November 1999, Ms. Scott accepted a position as an ADR Peer Review Panelist, and remained in this position until August 2001. As a panel member, Ms. Rice heard numerous complaints of discriminatory treatment and made “final determinations” concerning the resolution of those complaints. Kodak failed to follow through on those “final determinations” and failed to
-31-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 32 of 40
take genuine remedial action. 127. Following her tenure as a panelist, Kodak reneged on an earlier promise that Ms.
Scott could obtain a job in the Human Resources Department. Instead, Ms. Scott returned to her previous job and since then, has been subjected to harassment and intimidation from her supervisors in retaliation for her participation as a panelist. To this day, Kodak continues to deny Ms. Scott training and promotional opportunities made available to similarly situated Caucasian employees.
128. Ms. Scott filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on August 29, 2002 and received a notice of right to sue on April 30, 2004.
Olin Singletary 129. Plaintiff Olin Singletary worked at Kodak from 1967 through January 1, 2002. 130. Mr. Singletary began his employment as a “Bottle Washer” in the Solution Preparation Department, and approximately eighteen months later, transferred to the Production Department as an Assistant Maker (Wage Grade 8). In 1972, Kodak assigned Mr. Singletary Wage Grade 10. Mr. Singletary remained at this wage grade for approximately eleven years until 1983, when he received a promotion to a Full-Maker (Wage Grade 12). Twelve years later in 1995, Mr. Singletary became a Top Maker (Wage Grade 13). He remained in this position until he became an ADR Peer Review Panelist in November 1999. 131. During his employment, Kodak consistently paid Mr. Singletary less than similarly situated Caucasian employees. Further, Mr. Singletary trained Caucasian employees with less experience who were then advanced by Kodak to higher levels within the Company. 132. Kodak often assigned Mr. Singletary “dirty” work that Caucasian employees refused to do. This included working with carcinogens and dangerous chemicals, that could and did cause
-32-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 33 of 40
serious bodily injury. 133. Kodak also subjected Mr. Singletary to racial harassment and a racially hostile work
environment. Caucasian supervisors and employee frequently subjected Class members to racial slurs and racist graffiti, such as “Nigger,” “Jigaboos,” “Jungle Bunnies” and depictions of African American in nooses, written or drawn on bathrooms walls, elevator walls and delivery trucks. Mr. Singletary also witnessed a hang-man’s noose attached to a filing cabinet.
134. In November 1999, Mr. Singletary accepted a position as an ADR Peer Review Panelist, and remained in this position until August 2001. As a panel member, Mr. Singletary heard numerous complaints of discriminatory treatment and made “final determinations” concerning the resolution of those complaints. Kodak failed to follow through on those “final determinations” and failed to take genuine remedial action.
135. Following his tenure as a panelist, Kodak reneged on an earlier promise that Mr. Singletary could obtain a job in the Human Resources Department. Instead, Kodak placed Mr. Singletary in a position purportedly created for him, but he was subjected to harassment and intimidation in retaliation for his participation as a panelist.
136. Mr. Singletary subsequently learned that his position was eventually going to be terminated. Seeing no opportunity for advancement, Mr. Singletary was forced to retire.
137. Mr. Singletary filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on August 28, 2002. The EEOC issued a “for cause” determination on February 6, 2004, and a notice of right to sue on April 30, 2004.
Edna Williams 138. Plaintiff Edna Williams has worked at Kodak from 1974 until the present.
-33-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 34 of 40
139. She began her employment in the Industrial Department as an Inspector of Film Decks (Wage Grade “Trainee”). In 1975, Kodak transferred Ms. Williams to a position as a Laboratory Assistant in Department 75, Quality Control Testing Services (Wage Grade 55). She was the only African American female in the department until 1994, and only one of two African Americans total.
140. In approximately 1977, Kodak converted Ms. Williams wage grade to T4 -- reflecting a change in wage grade scale but not a change in pay -- and she remained at this wage grade for approximately twenty-two years, receiving no pay increases, despite satisfactory annual performance appraisals. Similarly situated Caucasian employees during this time period were assigned higher job classifications and wage grades, received greater compensation, and were provided opportunities for promotion that were not provided to Ms. Williams.
141. In 1999, as part of Kodak’s “Do The Right Thing Award,” Ms. Williams received a $1,500/year “merit raise,” and her wage grade was increased to a T5. This constitutes an admission by Kodak that Ms. Williams had been underpaid by the Company. However, the “award” received by Ms. Williams was grossly inadequate.
142. In 2002, Kodak increased Ms. Williams’ wage grade to a T6, where it remains today. Ms. Williams is still paid less than numerous similarly situated Caucasian employees who she has trained over the years and have less experience than her. Ms. Williams has frequently complained to her supervisors, but has been provided no relief.
143. Ms. Williams has also been subjected to a continuous pattern and practice of racial harassment while employed by Kodak. Examples of recent harassment include, without limitation: 1) an unidentified person(s) placing mucus and ground orange peel on the mouthpiece and earpiece
-34-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 35 of 40
of Ms. Williams’ telephone; 2) a co-worker slicing Ms. Williams’ desk chair and inserted thumbtacks facing upward; 3) co-workers vandalizing family pictures and other items on Ms. Williams’ desk; 4) being harassed by a Caucasian supervisor after she requested a reasonable accommodation for a disability resulting from a torn right rotator cuff suffered in 2002 while at work; and 5) as recently as June 2004, the arms of her desk chair were slashed. Similarly situated Caucasian employees are not treated in this fashion. Ms. Williams complained to her supervisors about each of the events but no remedial action was taken.
144. Further, Ms. Williams has witnessed and been advised that Caucasian employees often make unwanted sexual advances on female Class members, including groping them in Kodak “Dark Rooms,” often after returning to work after drinking alcohol on lunch or breaks.
XI. TOLLING OF RELEVANT STATUTES OF LIMITATION 145. By agreement, Kodak has agreed to toll the relevant statutes of limitation applicable to this Complaint, with respect to claims made under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Specifically, Kodak entered into agreements dated April 16, 2003, July 10, 2003, October 14, 2003 and April 6, 2004, tolling the relevant statutes of limitation between February 6, 2003 and June 30, 2004, for any African Americans who have worked at any of the Kodak facilities located in Rochester, New York, at any time between January 1, 1999, and the present.
COUNT I TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (By Plaintiffs Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Robert Gibson, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott and Olin Singletary)
-35-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 36 of 40
146. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference, Paragraphs 1-145, above. 147. Plaintiffs have filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC, and have received notices of their right to sue. 148. Kodak has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class with respect to the terms and conditions of employment because of their race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 149. Kodak’s conduct has been intentional and/or has had disparate impact on Plaintiffs and the Class with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment. 150. By virtue of Kodak’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured.
COUNT II THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (By All Plaintiffs) 151. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-145, above. 152. Kodak has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class by denying them the same rights as enjoyed by Caucasian employees with regard to the making, performance, modification and termination of their employment relationship with Kodak and with regard to the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of that relationship in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 153. Kodak’s conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class under the law. 154. By virtue of Kodak’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Class have been
-36-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 37 of 40
injured. COUNT III
THE NEW YORK HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 15 N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq.
(By Plaintiffs Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Robert Gibson, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott and Olin Singletary) 155. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-145, above. 156. Plaintiffs have filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC that were dual-filed by that agency with the New York Division of Human Rights, and have received notices of their right to sue. 157. Kodak has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class by denying them the same rights as enjoyed by Caucasian employees with regard to the terms and conditions of their employment in violation of 15 N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq. 158. Kodak’s conduct has been intentional and/or has had disparate impact on Plaintiffs and the Class with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment. 159. By virtue of Kodak’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court enter an order:
1. Certifying this action as a class action, with Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and their counsel of record as Class Counsel;
2. Adjudicating and declaring that Kodak’s conduct as set forth above is in
-37-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 38 of 40
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 15 N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq.; 3. Permanently enjoining and prohibiting Kodak and its officers, agents,
employees and successors from continuing to engage in the practices complained of herein; 4. Permanently enjoining and requiring Kodak to adopt policies and practices
that ensure the cessation of all discriminatory practices affecting the Individual Plaintiffs and the Class and requiring the institution of such measures as to ensure that these practices do not reemerge;
5. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class such equitable remedies, including, without limitation, back pay and front pay, necessary to provide the Individual Plaintiffs and the Class with full relief from the discrimination they have suffered;
6. Awarding the Individual Plaintiffs and the Class compensatory damages justified under the circumstances;
7. Awarding the Individual Plaintiffs and the Class punitive damages justified under the circumstances;
8. Awarding attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs associated with this action to Plaintiffs’ Counsel;
9. Retaining jurisdiction to ensure that Kodak fully complies with the equitable relief ordered; and
-38-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 39 of 40

10. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be appropriate in the interest of justice.

July 30, 2004

_/_s_: _W__il_li_a_m__G__. _B_a_u_e_r___________________ WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP WILLIAM G. BAUER 700 Crossroads Building 2 State Street Rochester, NY 14614 Tel: (585) 987-2800 Fax: (585) 454-3968 wbauer@woodsoviatt.com
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. STEPHEN A. WHINSTON WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, III SHANON J. CARSON 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-3053
GARWIN, BRONZAFT, GERSTEIN & FISHER, L.L.P. BRUCE E. GERSTEIN BRETT H. CEBULASH ADAM STEINFELD 1501 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Tel: (212) 398-0055 Fax: (212) 764-6620

-39-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 29 Filed 07/30/04 Page 40 of 40 THE CHAVERS LAW FIRM, P.C. CLAYBORNE E. CHAVERS SELIM ABLO 1776 Eye Street, N.W. 9th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 756-4820 Fax: (202) 756-1301 Attorneys for Plaintiff
-40-

 
 Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
COURTNEY DAVIS, EMPLOYEES COMMITTED FOR JUSTICE, OLIN SINGLETARY, GLADYS ALSTON and CARRIE RICE, et al . ,
Plaintiffs , v.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,
Defendant .

DECISION AND ORDER 04-CV-6098

Preliminary Statement Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting class-wide discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U . S . C . § 2000e, et seq . ("Tit l e VII"), t h e New

York Human Rights Law, 15 N. Y. Exec. Law § 291 et seq. ("HRL"), and

42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"). The Third Amended Complaint

alleges that "Kodak has engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice

of discrimination against its African American Employees,"

including discrimination in compensation, promotions, wage and job

classifications, and maintaining a hoscile work environment.

(Docket #106). Plaintiffs also claim that" [w] hen African American

empl oyees of Kodak complain (ed] about" the discriminatory practices

and policies to Kodak's management, they were "subjected to

retaliation . "

The amended complaint references and relies

upon multiple "Letters of Determination" issued by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on February 6, 2004 and

thereafter, which found, inter alia, that: (1) weekly pay rates for

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 30
white employees of Kodak were consistently higher than weekly pay rates for black employees; (2) Kodak maintained a hostile work environment with respect to its African American employees; and (3) Kodak retaliated against African American employees who participated in protected activities. See Amended Complaint at ~ 50-51 . Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of present, former and future African American Kodak employees in the United States.
Pending before the Court is Kodak's renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to three individual plaintiffs (Olin Singletary, Gladys Als ton and Carrie Rice), all of whom are former employees of Kodak. At the time of their separation from Kodak, all three executed releases which, according to Kodak, released Kodak from the very race discrimination claims they now pursue in the instant litigation. For their part, the three plaintiffs dispute the validity of the releases and demand further discovery to support their invalidity contentions.
The enforceability of the releases signed by Singletary, Alston and Rice was first raised in 2005 as part of Kodak's preanswer motion to dismiss. Because matters outside the pleadings were submitted with respect to the release issue, the Court converted that aspect of Kodak's motion into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . Although this initial motion was denied, the Court
2

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 30
stated that the viability of the releases "seems to be an issue that could be decided early in the litigation and without the need for extensive discovery." Emp loyees Committed For Just i ce v . Eastman Kodak Company, 407 F.Supp . 2d 423 , 437 (W.D . N. Y. 2005). In effect, the Court encouraged Kodak to renew the motion once discovery relevant to the validity of the releases had been completed. Id. Kodak now renews its motion with respect to the releases signed by Single tary, Alston and Rice .
Relevant Facts The Termination Assistance Plan: Kodak procured the releases at issue here as part of a benefit plan known as Kodak's Termination Assistance Plan or "TAP". Under TAP, Kodak agrees to provide benefits to eligible employees whose employment is terminated for a period expected to last more than thirty (30 ) days as a resul t of various employment decisions including lay-offs, reductions in force (RIF) initiatives, plant closures or department eliminations. See Benefit Plan, annexed as Exhibit "A" to Affidavit o f Rita Metras (Docket #116). The TAP program was initiated by Kodak in 1971 and has been periodically revised. See Deposition of Rita Metras at page 47, annexed as Exhibit "3" to Declaration of Stephen A. Whinston (Docket #135) . The TAP plan is a benefit program subject to ERISA. The plan (hereinafter referred to as the "TAP Plan" or "TAP" ) itself is
3

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 4 of 30
contained in a 24 -page document. See Metras Aff., Exhibit "A" (Docket #116). A summary of the TAP plan is also set forth in Kodak's employee handbook entitled "You and Kodak." See Metras Aff., Exhibit "B". Once accepted into TAP, employees are paid three types of severance benefits: (1) Termination Allowance Benefits which consist of a continuation of pay for a specified number of weeks based on the employee's length of service with Kodak; (2) a Retraining Allowance not to exceed $5,000.00; and (3) Outplacement Counseling Services provided by a third party vendor, the duration of which is determined by the employee's wage grade.
Beginning in 1997, TAP was revised by Kodak to require general employees (which would include Singletary, Alston and Rice) to sign a "waiver, release and covenant not to sue" Kodak as a condition of receiving TAP benefits. See Metras Dep. Tr. at pages 104-07; TAP Plan at page 8; Kodak Employee Handbook at page 231. The relevant release is broadly worded and is part of a six-page document entitled "Agreement, Waiver and Release." See Metras Aff., Exhibit "C" (Docket #116) . The terms of the "Agreement, Waiver and Release" inform the employee that: (1 ) it is a contract between the employee and Kodak; (2 ) the payment of "severance benefits" is contingent on Kodak's approval of the employee's election to participate 1n TAP, which approval Kodak may withhold depending on any participation cap Kodak establishes in relation to the number of employees electing to participate; (3 ) the employee is
4

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 5 of 30

"encouraged"

to consul t wi th "an attorney of your choice

concerning the agreement" before signing it; (4) that Kodak will

allow the employee "at least 45 days" to review the agreement and, if the employee chooses to sign the agreement in fewer than 45

days, the employee "acknowledge Is] such decision was entirely voluntary" and (5) that even after the Agreement has been signed, the employee retains "the right to revoke {the] Agreement within 7 days [after] signing it." Id.
When Kodak decided to initiate a layoff or downsizing initiative it would send to eligible employees a "package of documents" which would include a cover letter announcing the particular program and its eligibility requirements, an election

form to be completed by the employee to conf irm their decision to

seek TAP benefits and a booklet entitled "Your Kodak Voluntary

Separation Package." See Affidavit of Judy Rolwing, 3-4 (Docket

#165) . The booklet contains several references to the release
requirement and repeatedly informs the employee that in o r der to
receive TAP benefits, the employee must execute the release
enclosed with the package of materials. Id.
As to the language of the actual release, the Agreement
iteself provides:
In consideration for the Sever ance Benefi ts, you hereby release and discharge Kodak, its parent corporations, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors and assigns and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents (hereinafter collectively referred to as the

5

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 6 of 30
"Releasees"), both individually and in their official capacity, from all claims, actions and causes of action of any kind, which you, or your agents, executors, heirs, or assigns ever had, now have, or may have, whether known or unknown, as a result of your employment by or termination of employment from Kodak. See Metras Aff . , Exhibit "c" at page 2. The release goes on to specify certain claims as being within the scope of the release, including the employee's right to sue under "any federal, state or local law, regulation or executive o rder prohibiting discrimination" including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . The consideration supporting the release is described in the Agreement as "severance benefits." Id. The Agreement also sets forth certain specified claims that are not waived by signing the agreement, including those for accrued retirement benefits, accrued vacation benefits and benefits the employee is entitled to under any "Company health care, dental or life insurance plan." Id . at page 3. Later versions of the Agreement further provide that if any part of the Agreement, including the waiver of claims section, is found by a court to be "illegal, void or unenforceable" the employee agrees to "execute a second release that is legal and enforceable, without further consideration, payments or compensation. If See Metras Aff. Exhibit "0" at page 5. Singletary. Alston and Rice: The plaintiffs against whom Kodak seeks summary judgment all elected to participate in TAP .
6

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 7 of 30
Singletary signed the Agreement containing the release on October 30, 2001. Singletary thereafter accepted $41 , 200 . 00 in TAP severance payments. Alston signed the Agreement containing the release on March 7, 2002 and thereafter accepted $30,222.00 in TAP severance payments. Rice signed the Agreement containing the release on October 14, 2003 and thereafter accepted $36,660.00 in TAP severance payments . All three releases contain the following balded language immediately above the employee's signature line:
YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND ARE ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT VOLUNTARILY. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CONSIDERATION YOU ARE RECEIVING IN EXCHANGE FOR EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT IS GREATER THAN THAT WHICH YOU WOULD BE ENTITLED TO IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT. YOU HAVE NOT RELIED UPON ANY REPRESENTATION OR STATEMENT. WRITTEN OR ORAL. NOT SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT. Id. At the time Alston and Rice signed their releases, both had already filed a charge of race discrimination against Kodak with the
EEOC. See Affidavit of Gladys Alston at , 8 and Affidavit of Carrie
Rice at , 10, annexed as Exhibits "3 " and "4" to Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts ("SOF") (Docket #135). Singletary did not file his claim of discrimination with the EEOC until August 2002, ten months after he signed the release. See Affidavit of Olin Singletary at ~I 22, annexed as Exhibit "2 " to Plaintiffs ' SOF .
In opposing summary judgment, Singletary, Alston and Rice do not deny making the election to participate in TAP, receiving the
7

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 8 of 30
written description of the TAP documents and the employee handbooks containing the description of TAP, or signing the Agreement which contained the "Agreement, Waiver and Release" provisions . Rather, in affidavits submitted to the Court, Singl etary, Alston and Rice urge that there are issues of fact as to the circumstances surrounding the signing of the releases and the underlying consideration which precludes the granting of summary judgment against them . Their affidavits claim that the releases were not fully and properly explained to them, that material and fraudulent oral misrepresentations were made to them by Kodak officials inducing them to sign the Agreement, that the agreements were presented in a coercive work environment without sufficient time or counsel to make an informed decision and that the releases were the product of economic coercion and duress . Both Alston and Rice aver that they had "no idea that by s i gning the Agreement, Waiver and Release, I was dismissing my previously filed and p e nding EEOC
'1 '1 Charge of Discrimination . " See Alston 'Aff . at 20; Rice Aff. at
26. All three plaintiffs also claim that there exist material factual issues as to whether their releases are void because the releases are not supported by adequate consideration. 1
In opposing the initial motion for summary judgment made by Kodak on the release issue, counsel for p!aintiff was pressed by thi s Court as to whether the adequacy of the consideration was the "on!y basis" for Singletary, Alston and Rice's arguments that the releases were invalid. See Affirmation of Steven Carling, Esq., Exhibit "e" at page 40 (Docket #116) . Although counse! seemed to indicate that consideration was the only disputed issue upon which additional discovery was needed, the motion papers filed in opposition to Kodak's renewed summary judgment motion
8

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 9 of 30
Discussion The general principles used to evaluate the merits of summary judgment motions are well settled. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is warranted where "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). A genuine issue exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 4.77 U.S . 24.2, 24.8 (1986). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, all ambiguities and inferences drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1304. (2d Cir . 1995). While the burden of showing that no genuine factual dispute exists is on the defendant, when faced with a properly supported summary judgment motion, plaintiff must "come forth with evidence sufficient to al l ow a reasonable jury to find in her favor." Brown v. Henderson, 257 F . 3d 24.6, 252 (2d Cir. 2001). Such a showing "is not created by a mere allegation in the pleadings, nor by surmise or conjecture on the part of the litigants." United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 689 F.2d 379, 381 (2d Cir. 1982) (internal citation omitted). Finally, "the mere existence of factual issues - where those issues are not material
raise many more grounds for claiming Singletary, Alston and Rice are not bound by the releases they executed.
9

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 10 of 30
to the claims before the court - will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Quarles v. General Motors Corp., 758 F. 2d 839, 840 (2d Cir. 1985).
In evaluating the merits of a summary judgment motion in the context of a discrimination claim, courts must be cautious in granting the relief where the conduct at issue "requires an assessment of individuals' motivations and state of mind" because juries have "special advantages over judges in this area . " Brown y. Henderson, 257 F.3d at 251. Nevertheless, "the salutary purposes of summary judgment - avoiding protracted, expensive and harassing trials - apply no less to discrimination cases than to commercial or other areas of litigation." Meiri v . Dacon, 759 F . 2d 989, 998 (2d Cir. 1985) "[S]ummary judgment remains available to reject discrimination claims in cases lacking genuine issues of material fact." Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F . 3d 29, 40 (2d Cir. 1994 ) . See Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines. Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 466 (2d Cir . 2001) ("It is now beyond cavil that summary judgment may be appropriate even in the fact-intensive context of discrimination cases. 1t ) .
Releasing Claims Under Title VII: Knowing and voluntary agreements to settle cases, including cases initiated under federal discrimination laws with broad remedial purposes like Title VII. are favored by courts and, once executed, should not be subject to easy invalidation. Carson v. American Brands. Inc . , 450 U.S. 79, 88 n.14
10

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 11 of 30
(1981) (" (iJ n enacting Title VII, Congress expressed a strong
preference for encouraging voluntary sett l ement of employment discrimination claims" ) ; Wright v. Eastman Kodak Company, 445 F . Supp . 2d 314, 317 (W.D . N . Y . 2006) (it is "well settled that stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts, and are not lightly cast aside") (internal quotation and citation omitted). 2
Knowing and Voluntary Test : Whether obtained in connection with
a specific employment dispute, or, more generally as part of an enhanced benefit or separation pay program, there are several factors a court must consider in evaluating whether to enforce a waiver or release of Title VIr claims . To be effective, a waiver of an employee's Title VII claims must be knowing and voluntary. The Second Circuit is one of several circuits to adopt a "totality of circumstances test" in evaluating the knowing and voluntary standard. Bormann v. AT&T Communications. Inc., 875 F.2d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 1989 ) . In Bormann, the Second Circuit delineated several factors courts should consider in deciding whether, under the totality of circumstances, a waiver of Title VII discrimination claims was made knowingly and volunt arily. The relevant factors
2 It is also proper for an employer like Kodak to seek and obtain a waiver or release of claims pursuant to a benefit program subject to ERISA. In Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882, 894 (1996), the Supreme Court found no violation of ERISA where the e mployer offered retirement incentives conditioned upon the employee executing a release of emp loyment related claims. The Court held: "{I}i an employer can avoid litigation that might result from laying off an employee by enti cing him to retire early . . . it stands to reason that the employer can also protect itself from suits arising out of that retirement by asking the employee to release any employment-related claims he may have." rd. at 994-95.
11

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 12 of 30
include: (1) the plaintiff's education and business experience; (2) the amount of time the plaintiff had possession of or access to the release before signing it; (3) the plaintiff's role in deciding the terms of the release; (4) the clarity of the release; (5) whether the plaintiff was represented by or consulted an attorney; (6) whether the consideration given in exchange for the employee's waiver exceeds benefits to which the employee was already entitled by contract or law i (7) whether the employer encouraged the employee to consult an attorney; and (8) whether the employee had a fair opportunity to do so. These factors are not exhaustive, and all need not be satisfied for a release to be deemed enforceable. rd. at 403. While the "knowing and voluntary" benchmark necessary for releasing Title VII claims is well established, application of the standard by various courts and circuits has been criticized as inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. See Daniel P. 0' Gorman, A State of Disarray: The "Knowing and Voluntary" Standard for Releasing Claims Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 8 U. Pa. J. Labor and Employment Law 73 (2005).
Ratification and Tender-Back: In addition to examining the totality of circumstances to decide whether a particular release or waiver is knowing and voluntary, courts within the Second Circuit have also applied the doctrines of ratification and tender-back in determining whether a release is voidable. Though factually related, and thus often lumped together for analytical purposes, the
12

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 13 of 30
rules of ratification and tender-back can represent distinct hurdles to employees seeking to avoid the consequences of a release.
Ratification : As referenced above, a release must be knowing and voluntary in order to be valid. Where the totality of circumstances surrounding how the release was obtained demonstrates that it was not a knowing and voluntary decision because of duress, coercion or fraudulent misrepresentations by the employer, the release is not void, but voidable. The distinction between a void
release and a voidable release is important. Where a release is voidable, once the employee is cognizant of the alleged defect and has a reasonable opportunity to reject or challenge the release, the employee's subsequent decision to keep the consideration despite the defect operates to ratify the release. "A voidable waiver and release can still be enforced if it is ratified by the employee." Wittorf v. Shell Oil Company, 37 F . 3d 1151, 1154 (5th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment granted where employee chose to retain enhanced severance benefits paid to him in consideration for his promise not to file claims against his employer).l Ratification
1 The plaintiff in Wittorf was terminated from his employment as part of a reduction in force. After signing a release in exchange for enhanced severance benefits, the plaintiff in Wittorf brought a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and age discrimination under the ADEA. Although the court found that Wittorf had ratified the release when he "chose to retain and not tender back the enhanced severance benefits" (Wittorf, 37 F.3d at 1154), this decision predated the Supreme Court's holding in Oubre v. Entergy Operations. Inc., 522 U. S. 422, 428 (1998), that plaintiffs are not required to tender-back consideration before bringing claims under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act ("QWBPA").
See intra note 5.
13

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 14 of 30
occurs "at the point that a party learns that his prior agreement not to sue is voidable but continues to accept the benefits of that agreement." Livingston v. Bev-Pak. Inc., 112 F.Supp.2d 242, 249 (N.D.N.Y. 2000). "Numerous federal courts hold that by accepting and retaining the benefits of a voidable release, a party ratifies the release and cannot avoid its obligations." Aikins v . Tosco Refining Co., 1999 WL 179686, *6 (N . D. Cal. March 26, 1999) (although acceptance of severance benefits supported a finding of ratification, summary judgment denied because employee's attempt to rescind the release soon after cashing check created an issue of fact) . See, ~, Reid v. IBM Corporation, 1997 WL 357969, *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1997) (by accepting and keeping severance benefits after the alleged duress, incapacitation and undue influence was removed, employee-plaintiff ratified the release and could not pursue Title VII claim) i Dorn v. Astra USA, 975 F.Supp. 388, 393-94 (D. Mass. 1997) (even if there were coercion or duress in obtaining general releases from terminated employees, plaintiffs ratified the agreements and waived right to assert defenses by accepting benefits and waiting between 11 and 34 months to disavow agreements and sue for sexual harassment) .
Tender Back Doctrine: Although related to the ratification doctrine, the tender back doctrine concerns actions the employeeplaintiff must take before filing suit. "The tender back doctrine requires, as a condition precedent to suit, that a plaintiff return
14

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 15 of 30
the consideration received in exchange for a release, on the theory that it is inconsistent to bring suit against the defendant while at the same time retaining the consideration received in exchange for a promise not to bring such a suit." Oubre v. Entergy Operations. Inc. , 522 U.S. 422, . 436-437 (1998) (Thomas, J. dissenting) (emphasis in original). The tender back doctrine does not preclude a suit, but "merely puts the employee to a choice between avoiding the release and retaining the benefit of his bargain." Id. at 439. Thus, under the tender back doctrine, an employee who obtains extra severance benefits in exchange for a release in favor of the employer must tender the extra benefits back to the employer as a condition precedent to challenging the validity of the release. "The tender back doctrine operates not to make the voidable release binding, as does ratification, but rather precludes a party from simultaneously retaining the benefits of the release and suing to vindicate released claims." rd . at 440. See Fleming v . United States Postal Service, 27 F.3d 259, 261-62 (7th Cir. 1994) (employee who agreed to settle her Title VII action could not seek to rescind release without first tendering or offering to tender consideration received); Williams v . Phillips Petroleum Co., 23 F. 3d 930, 937 (5th Cir. 1994) (" fa] person who signs a release, then sues his or her employer for matters covered under the release, is obligated to return the consideration"); Bittinger v. Tecumseh Products Co., 83 F.Supp.2d 851, 871 (E.D. Mich. 1998) ("the tender
15

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 16 of 30

of consideration is a prerequi site to plaintiff's maintenance of a

claim challenging the validity of a rel e ase in a non - ADEA context") .

Ratification and Tender Back in Title VII cases: Although

there has been disagreement among courts as to whether the

ratification and/or tender back doctrine should be applied in the

context of a plaintiff-employee seeking to enfor ce Title VII

rights,~ courts within the Second Circuit have applied both

doctrines in Title VII cases. In Tung v. Texaco, 32 F.Supp.2d 115

(S.D.N.Y. 1997), plaintiff Tung, who had worked for Texaco for

fourteen years, was notified that he was being terminated as part

of a company-wide reduction in force. Thereafter, Tung was offered

an "enhanced" benefit package in return for agreeing to release his

employer from any and all claims, including all employment

discrimination claims, arising in connection with his employment.

Tung signed the release and received over $46,000 . 00 in enhanced

severance benefits.

Tung subsequently filed a charge of

discrimination with the EEOC alleging both race and age

discrimination. Texaco moved to dismiss and the district court

converted the motion into one for summary judgment. Applying the

4 In some reported decisions, courts have determined that enforcing

the ratification and tender back doctrines defeat the remedial purposes

of federal civil rights statutes.

See,~, Cole v. Gaming

Entertainment , L . L.C., 199 F.Supp.2d 208, 215-217 (D. Del. 2002) (under

facts presented, employee was not required to tender back monetary

consideration before commencing Title VII action) i Rang el v. El Paso

Natural Gas Company, 996 F.Supp 1093, 1099 (D. N.M. 1998) (tender back

doctrine did not require employee to return severance pay before filing

Title VII lawsuit, but could constitute an offset to any recovery) .

16

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 17 of 30
Bormann factors, the district court granted summary judgment ~n favor of Texaco. As to the enhanced severance benefits paid to Tung, the court stated: "[A] plaintiff who accepts and neither returns nor offers to return the consideration he or she has received for consideration for executing a release , is deemed to have ratified the Release and is thereby barred from challenging its validity. " rd . at 118. The fact that Tung was willing to repay the consideration should the court uphold the validity of the release was of no moment. "This [offer to repay] is by no means an unconditional tender and occurs too late to undo the ratification resulting from acceptance and retention of the severance payments." Id. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Tung's Title VII claimss "substantially for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion." Tung v. Texaco, 150 F. 3d 206, 208 (2nd Cir. 1998).
Similarly, in Reid v. IBM Corporation, 1997 WL 357969 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1997) the plaintiff enrolled in an early retirement program that paid enhanced severance benefits to eligible employees in return for a release of all claims related to plaintiff's
5 After the district court's decision i n Tung, the Supreme Court decided Oubre v. Entergy Operations Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (1998). In Oubre, the Court held that a release that does not conform to the specific statutory requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) does not bar an age discrimination claim under the ADEA and the employer may not "invoke the employer's failure to tender back as a way of excusing its own failure to comply" with the OWBPA. rd. at 427 - 28. Accordingly, while Tung's Title VII claims were dismissed, he was allowed to proceed with his ADEA claims based on the Oubre holding.
17

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 18 of 30

employment with IBM, including Title VII claims. After signing the

release and receiving $28,000.00 in enhanced severance benefits,

plaintiff filed employment discrimination claims with the EEOC. In

granting IBM's motion for summary judgment, the court addressed,

inter alia, the ratification and tender back doctrines as applied

to p l aintiff's allegation that the release was procured as a result

of economic duress, undue influence and plaintiff's own mental

incapacity :

Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff never tendered back or returned the $28,000 in severance pay he received in consideration for the Release. (Reid dep. at 34 ) Plaintiff does not allege that he continued to suffer from the same undue influence, duress, mental disability or intoxication after July 1993, or that these factors continued to impair his ability to act reasonably. Therefore, by accepting the benefits of the transaction even after the alleged undue influence, duress, or incapacity was remo ved, and by failing to tender back the consideration, plaintiff has acquiesced to the terms of the Release and ratified it.

Id. at *11. In Livingston v. Bev-Pak , Inc., 112 F.Supp.2d 242 (N.D.N.Y.
2000), the plaintiff was going to be terminated from his employment

after filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC. His employer

offered plaintiff $10,000.00 if he would resign and "drqp" the EEOC

charges. Plaintiff agreed and signed a release in favor of his

employer.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a Title VII race

discrimination suit against his former employer and claimed his

release was signed under duress and that he was mentally

18

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 19 of 30
incapacitated at the time he resigned and executed the release . In granting the employer's motion for summary judgment, the court applied the doctrines of ratification and tender back. The court found that "even if Plaintiff did not knowingl y and voluntarily execute the release agreement, he has since ratified the agreement by inaction . " Id. at 249. With respect to the tender back doctrine, the court held that a "key element" of ratification "is the failure of the plaintiff to tender back the consideration that he received in e xchange for executing the release." rd. Because plaintiff "has neither tendered back, nor offered to tender back the $10,000 that he received in consideration for signing the release agreement," he was barred from bringing his federal Title VII claims. rd. at 249 .
The tender back requirement was again applied to a Title VII claim ln Cheung v . New York Palace Hotel, 2005 WL 2387573 (E . D.N . Y. Sept. 28, 2005) The plaintiff in Cheung was an African American woman who was terminated from her position after sixteen years of service. After her termination, plaintiff s i gned a severance agreement in which she agreed to release any and all potential claims against the defendant, including Title VII claims, relating to her termination. In return for the release, plaintiff was paid over $80,000 . 00. Id. at * 1. Ten months l ater, plaintif f filed a race discrimination claim with the EEOC and thereafter a lawsuit claiming race-based discrimination . Invoking the release, the
19

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 20 of 30
employer moved to dismiss the complaint. Relying on the Second
Circuit's decision in Tung , the court found the "rule requi ring the
return of consideration before a contra ctual release may be
rescinded is controlling" and dismissed plaintiff's Title VII
claims. Id. at *4. The court stated : "[Ilt is undisputed that
plaintiff has failed to tender back the consideration she received
for releasing her claims nor has she made such an offer . Therefore,
plaintiff cannot rescind the Agreement and her Title VII claims are
consequently barred." Id . at *4.
Final l y, and most recently, this court applied the ratification
and tender back rules in a case in which the plaintiffs could have
been members of the putative class in the instant litigation . In Wright v. Eastman Kodak Company, 445 F. Supp . 2d 314 (W.D.N.Y. ) (Larimer, J . ), this court held that releases signed by two
Ko dak employees seeking to assert Title VII race discrimination
claims were valid despite their claim that the releases were
procured through fraud and duress. In g r anting Kodak's motion for
summary judgment, Judge Larimer held:
Plaintiffs in this case do not deny that they accepted and retained the mon i es that Kodak paid to them pursuant to the releases. There is no hint in the record that they have repudiated those releases or attempted to return the money (as the settlement agreement s themselv es provided they would in the event that plaintiffs sued Kodak) . Pl aintiffs cannot have it both ways: enjoying the substantial monetary benefits that Kodak ag reed to give them as consideration for the releases. but then asking that they be excused from living up
20

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 21 of 30
to their end of the bargain by honoring those releases. Wright, 445 F.Supp.2d at 320 (emphasis added) . Application of Ratification and Tender Back Rules: Application of the ratification and tender back doctrines to the undisputed facts presented here is straightforward. As in Wright, there is no dispute in this record that Singletary, Alston and Rice accepted and retained the TAP severance benefits Kodak paid them when their employment with Kodak ended. As in Wright, there is no genuine dispute in this record that prior to commencing this litigation they did not return and still not have not offered to return the TAP payments they received from Kodak in exchange for the release of their Title VII claims . Any evidence to support timely renunciation of the release or any offer to return their TAP benefits is uniquely within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and further discovery on this issue is not needed. See Alpert's Newspaper Delivery Inc . v . New York Times Co., 1988 WL 95146, * 11 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 1988) (court rejected plaintiffs' Rule 56 (f) affidavit that they needed more discovery to oppose summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs would be the only parties in possession of the evidence necessary to defeat summary judgment and "discern {edl no obstacle to the plaintiffs submitting their own affidavitsH) . Moreover, despite relying on allegations that would require application of the tender back doctrine (duress, fraud, misrepresentations), even after suit was commenced and Kodak moved
21

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 22 of 30
to dismiss the complaint based on the signed releases, Singletary, Alston and Rice have still not returned or offered to tender back their TAP benefits. The ratification doctrine was raised by Kodak in their moving papers6 and plaintiffs did not address it . Indeed, after oral argument of the instant motion, Judge Larimer issued his decision in Wright v . Kodak and this Court requested additional briefing on the applicability of the Wright decision to Kodak's motion here. Kodak's supplemental brief again relied on the ratification and tender back doctrines. Plaintiffs chose not to address either doctrine in their supplemental brief.
In sum, I find the doctrines of ratification and tender back to be controlling here . By intentionally retaining the TAP benefits plaintiffs received in exchange for the release, even after they were aware of the alleged defects involved in procuring the release, Si ngletary, Alston and Rice have ratified the releases they signed. Moreover, their failure at any time to tender back or offer to tender back their TAP benefits precludes them from arguing that the r eleases are vo idable for fraud, duress, or deliberate misrepresentation. See Kristoferson v. Otis Spunkmeyer. Inc. , 965 F.Supp. 545, 549 (S.D . N . Y. 1997 ) (historically, at least "an offer to tender back [must beJ made coincident with the bringing of the action challenging the underlying contract, to substitute for the
6 See Do cket #142 at page 12 - 13. 22

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 23 of 30

actual tender") . 1

Adequate Consideration : The only argument made by plaintiffs

that survives application of the ratification and tender back

doctrines is their claim that the releases they signed were not

supported by adequate consideration. It is beyond cavil that "{a]

release is not effective unless the party giving the release

receives something of value to which the party was not otherwise entitled. " Chaput v. Unisys Corporation, 964 F.2d 1299, 1301 (2 nd

Cir. 1992)

If a release is not supported by adequate

consideration, it is void because there is no contract. The

doctrines of ratification and tender back thus have no relevance to

7 In Kristoferson, the court held that when the validity of releases signed in the employment context are litigated, there are "competing considerations" that need to be balanced. On the one hand, "a typical employee will already have spent the monies she received in exchange for the release by the time she learns of its voidability." Kristoferson v. Otis Spunkmeyer . Inc., 965 F.Supp. at 548. On the other hand "[t]o enable a plaintiff who has already received substantial consideration for a release to keep that consideration while at the same time bringing the very lawsuit the release was intended to obviate is not only unfair on its face, but is bound to encourage such doubtful litigation." Id. The court devised its own unique approach to make sure neither side gets a "free ride" :
[T]his Court will henceforth require that, before a Title VIr plaintiff who has previously received benefits for signing a release from such liability can go forward with such an action, the plaintiff must execute a formal undertaking that requires the plaintiff, if the release is later found to be invalid, to return the consideration to the employer, in an amount (including possible interest) and on a schedule and other terms to be determined by the Court at the conclusion of the case, regardless of whether the plaintiff thereafter prevails on her Title vIr claim.
rd. at 549. While this approach is innovative, it has not been suggested by plaintiffs in response to the instant motion, it has not been endorsed by the Second Circuit, and this Court declines to adopt it here.
23

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 24 of 30

releases obtained without adequate consideration. "Indeed, if there

was no consideration, such consideration could be neither returned

nor retained." Id. at 1302.

The issue then is whether the TAP benefits given to Singletary,

Alston and Rice in exchange for the their waiver exceeded benefits

to which they were already entitled by contract or law. Bormann v.

AT&T Communications . Inc., 875 F.2d at 403. There is no dispute

that each of the plaintiffs signed an agreement containing the

following specific representation: "YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE

CONSIDERATION YOU ARE RECEIVING IN EXCHANGE FOR EXECUTING THIS

AGREEMENT IS GREATER THAN THAT WHICH YOU WOULD BE ENTITLED TO IN THE

ABSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT ." See Metras Aff., Exhibit "D" at page

6 (Docket #116). Moreover, the agreement also sets forth certain

specified claims that Singletary, Alston and Rice were not waiving

by signing the agreement , including those for accrued retirement

benefits, accrued vacation benefits and benefits the employee is

entitled to under any "Company health care, dental or life insurance

plan. " 1.s!..c at page 3. Thus, so long as the TAP payments,

outplacement counseling or retraining allowance were benefits that

plaintiffs ~ould not otherwise be entitled to if they declined to

sign the release, there was adequate consideration .

In trying to overcome the plain language of the Agreements they

signed, plaintiffs make several arguments regarding the lack of

adequate consideration.

First, plaintiffs claim that the

24

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 25 of 30
consideration was inadequate because Kodak's alleged discriminatory pay practices unfairly reduced the TAP benefits plaintiffs were paid as compared to similarly situated white employees who were paid TAP benefits. Plaintiffs cite no statute, regul ation or case supporting this argument and this Court can find none. If plaintiffs' position were correct , any release obtained by an employer that encompassed work related discrimination claims would be rendered ineffective simply upon the employee claiming that the consideration paid in exchange for the release was negatively impacted by past discrimination. This Court declines to establish such a rule.
Second, plaintiffs argue that because Singletary, Alston and Rice began their employment prior to 1997, when these same TAP benefits "flowed automatically to all eligible employees" without the requirement of a signed release, there is an issue of fact as to whether consideration was provided to them for signing the releases. See Declaration of Stephen A. Whinston, Esq . at ~ 18 (Docket #135). This argument fails because severance benefit plans are not retirement or pension plans under ERISA, they are welfare benefit plans. "[S}everance benefits are unaccrued and unvested, and an employer does not owe its employees a fiduciary duty when it amends or abolishes a severance benefit plan." Tarver v. North American Company for Life and Health Ins., 919 F.Supp. 1128, 1131 (N . D. Ill. 1996 ) (plaintiff's claim that she should have been considered for older, more favorable severance benefit plan
25

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 26 of 30
dismissed because the plan in effect at the time of separation controls). As the Supreme Court has stated, "ERISA does not create any substantive entitlement" to employer- provided welfare benefits. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejong en, 514 U. S. 73, 78 (1995) . Rather, employers are "generally free under ERISA, for any reason at any time, to adopt, modify, or terminate welfare plans." .l.Q...", Therefore, it was within Kodak's discretion to modify the TAP plan in 1997 to require a release before dispensing severance benefits, even though it had previously given those benefits without requiring a release . Simply put, at the time of their separation from Kodak, plaintiffs were no longer entitled to the severance benefits that were in effect at the time they were hired and t he fact that during their employment Kodak implemented a release requirement does not establish that they r e ceived inadequate consi deration f or that release. See Adams v. Tetley USA , Inc., 363 F . Supp.2d 94, 103-104 (D. Conn. 2005 ) (court rejected plaintiffs' claim that they were entitled to the benefits of a 1975 pl an that was in effect when they began working for defendant because new plan was in effect when they ended their employment) .
Third, plaintiffs claim that they did not receive adequate consideration for their r eleases because another African American employee, Maria Scott, refused to sign the release but still received some of the severance benefits provided by TAP . See Plaintiffs' SOF (Docket # 135) at pages 19-21 . In her affidav it, Ms.
26

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 27 of 30
Scott states that she was represented by counsel when she was presented with her severance package and that her attorneys "assisted [her ] in getting additional information" about her TAP benefits. See Affidavit of Maria Scott ~ 8, Exhibit #5 to Plaintiffs' SOF (Docket #135) . According to Ms. Scott, based on the advice of counsel, she refused to sign the release, but received a retraining allowance, six months of medical insurance coverage,
'1 accumulated vacation pay and cash accumulation. Id. at 9-11. She
stated that "[t ) he only thing I would not get would be the pay based on tenure with the Company." Id . at 9.
Contrary to the inference that the TAP severance pay was minimal, the amounts paid to Singletary, Alston and Rice under this provision of TAP were substantial. Indeed, plaintiffs received $41,200.00, $30,222.00 and $36,666 . 00, respectively, amounts that can hardly be couched as nominal or insignificant consideration. Moreover, there is no basis for a finding that Singletary, Alston and Rice would have received these amounts wi thout signing a release. In fact, Ms. Scott's affidavit only serves to pay tribute to this determination. See Myricks v . Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, __ F.3d __ , 2007 WL 675341, *6 (lIth Cir. March 7, 2007) (consideration paid to other employees not relevant where record confirms Title VII plaintiff received some consideration for signing release in return for enhanced severance package) .
The law is clear that as long as an employee receives some
27

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 28 of 30
benefit that is greater than what he was already entitled to, there is consideration . ~ Wagner v. NutraSweet Co., 95 F.3d 527, 532 (7th Cir. 1996) {"C]onsideration is relatively easy to show. As long as the person receives something of value in exchange for her own promise or detriment, the courts will not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration"}. Singletary, Alston and Rice unquestionably received something of value in exchange for signing the release.
Indeed, all three plaintiffs explicitly and specifically
acknowledged in writing that they were obtaining enhanced severance benefits greater than what they would have been entitled to in the absence of signing the release . The record here only confirms that "the consideration given in exchange for the employee's waiver exceeds benefits to which the employee was already entitled by contract or law ." Bormann v. AT&T Communications, Inc., 875 F. 2d at 403. See DiMartino v . City of Hartford, 636 F . Supp . 1241, 1249 (D. Conn. 1986) (release is supported by adequate consideration if employee received "something of value" to which he had no previous right) . Accordingly. plaintiffs federal claims are barred by the releases they signed and Kodak is entitled to summary judgment on those claims.
State Law Claims: In most instances, where all federal law claims are dismissed in the early stages of a lawsuit, "the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine - judicial economy, convenience, fairness. and comity - will point
28

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 29 of 30
toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 305 (2d Cir. 2003). See also Hewitt v. Al can Aluminum Corp., 185 F.Supp.2d 183, 191 (N.D.N .Y. 2001) (federal courts "should decline the exercise of pendant jurisdiction" where only state law claims remain). Here, having dismissed the federal discrimination claims of Singletary, Alston and Rice, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims and hereby dismisses them without prejudice . See Wharton v. Duke Realty . LLP, 467 F.Supp . 2d 381, 393 (S.D.N.Y . 2006) (after dismissing plaintiff's federal discrimination claims, court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her New York State Human Rights Law claims and dismissed them without prejudice so "plaintiff may bring these claims in the New York State Supreme Court") i Dempsey v. Town of Brighton, 749 F.Supp. 1215, 1230 (W.O.N.Y. 1990) (pendent state law claims dismissed when summary judgment granted against plaintiff on alleged civil rights violations) . Further, plaintiffs did not allege diversity jurisdiction in their third amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and based on the allegations in the complaint, complete diversity of citizenship between the parties is lacking. Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims. See Pollock v. Chertoff, 361 F.Supp.2d 126, 136 (W . D. N. Y. 2005).
29

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 223 Filed 03/29/07 Page 30 of 30
Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, Kodak's motion for summary judgment (Docket #116) is granted .
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

March '2'1 , 2007
Rochester, New York

Judge

30

 
 - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- -Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 1 of 59

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
COURTNEY DAVIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s) I v.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,
Defendant (s) .
GLADYS ALSTON, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s ) , v.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,
Defendant(s) .

DECISION AND ORDER 04 - CV-609BFe
DECISION AND ORDER 07 - CV - 6S12L

Preliminary Statement

On November 12, 2003, plaintiff Courtney Davis filed a

handwritten pro ~ complaint in the United States District Court

thaf for the Northern District of California alleging

she was

discriminated against by her employer, defendant Eas tlman Kodak

Company ("Kodak"). Now, almost seven years later, what. Courtney

Davis commenced as a single plaintiff Q±Q ~ lawsuit is before this

Court as a nationwide class action in which a putative class of

over three thousand current and former African American Kodak

employees, with Courtney Davis as lead plaintiff, seek final

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 2 of 59
approval of a class wide settlement that provides both monetary and injunctive relief.
For the past six years this Court has presided over this hard fought litigation. I am fully familiar with the claims presented, the defenses asserted, the damages allegedly suffered and the factual and legal risks presented to both plaintiffs and Kodak in continuing to litigate the case to conclusion. For the reasons set forth below, the motions for final approval of the settlement (Dockets ## 321, 324) are granted, except that the service awards are reduced to $50,000 for each named plaintiff.
Background of the Litigation On November 12, 2003, plaintiff Courtney Davis filed this case as the sole plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See Complaint attached to Docket # 16. On March 1, 2004, United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. See Order dated March 1, 2004 attached to Docket # 16. On March 10, 2004, this action was transferred to the Western District of New York’s Rochester Division from the Northern District of California. (Docket # 16). On April 7, 2004, based on the parties’ prior consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 3 of 59
636(c), the Honorable Charles J. Siragusa transferred the litigation to the undersigned for all matters. See Order dated April 7, 2004 (Docket # 21).
On July 30, 2004, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims on behalf of the following named plaintiffs: (1) Employees Committed for Justice (“ECJ”), an organization of past and current African American employees of defendant Kodak; (2) Gladys Alston; (3) Courtney Davis (original plaintiff); (4) Cynthia Gayden; (5) Robert Gibson; (6) Jannie Nesmith; (7) Noralean Pringle; (8) Carrie Rice; (9) Maria Scott; (10) Olin Singletary; and (11) Edna Williams. See Amended Complaint (Docket # 29). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 7, 2005 (Docket # 77), and a Third Amended Complaint on March 1, 2006 (Docket # 106). In their Third Amended Complaint, plaintiffs assert that they “bring this action as representatives of a class of all past, current and future African American employees of Kodak.” See Third Amended Complaint (Docket # 106) at ¶ 1.
The substance of plaintiffs’ allegations against Kodak have been previously set forth in several opinions of this Court issued at various junctures of the litigation1 and will not be repeated at
1 See in particular Employees Committed For Justice v. Eastman Kodak Co., 407 F. Supp. 2d 423 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) and Davis v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 04-CV-6098, 2007 WL 952042 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2007).
3

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 4 of 59
length here. Suffice it to say that plaintiffs claim that Kodak “engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimination against its African American employees.” Id. at ¶ 3. Specifically, plaintiffs allege (i) discrimination in compensation, (ii) discrimination in promotions, (iii) discrimination in wage classifications and job assignments, (iv) harassment/hostile work environment, and (v) retaliation. Id. Plaintiffs assert three causes of action against defendant, including claims for violations of (1) Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (2) The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and (3) The New York Human Rights Law, 15 N.Y. Executive Law §§ 291 et seq. See id. at ¶¶ 174-187. Plaintiffs seek class-wide injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages.
Throughout the litigation, Kodak has vigorously contested the merits of both the individual and class claims asserted by plaintiffs. Numerous motions have been filed and hearings held, including motions raising unique and complex legal issues. The interest of the plaintiffs and presumably the putative class in the litigation has remained high. At almost every court appearance the large courtrooms in our federal courthouse have been filled to capacity and individuals interested in attending the proceedings have on occasion been turned away because of lack of seating space.
4

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 5 of 59
On March 29, 2007, this Court issued a decision granting Kodak’s motion for summary judgment with respect to three individual plaintiffs who, prior to their separation from Kodak, had executed releases. The releases were obtained as part of Kodak’s Termination Assistance Plan (or “TAP”) in which a terminated employee could obtain enhanced severance benefits in exchange for releasing Kodak from all claims, actions and causes of action of any kind including any federal, state or local law, regulation or executive order prohibiting discrimination. Although the three plaintiffs (Gladys Alston, Carrie Rice, and Olin Singletary) contested the validity of the releases, the Court applied the doctrines of tender back and ratification and found the releases to be valid and enforceable. The Court held: “I find the doctrines of ratification and tender back to be controlling here. By intentionally retaining the TAP benefits plaintiffs received in exchange for the release, even after they were aware of the alleged defects involved in procuring the release, Singletary, Alston and Rice have ratified the releases they signed. Moreover, their failure at any time to tender back or offer to tender back their TAP benefits precludes them from arguing that the releases are voidable for fraud, duress, or deliberate misrepresentation.” Davis v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 04-CV-6098, 2007 WL 952042, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2007).
5

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 6 of 59
Although the Court’s decision as to the TAP releases referenced only three named plaintiffs, almost forty percent of the potential class members had signed TAP releases and hence my decision impacted the viability of the federal claims of over eleven hundred putative class members. Accordingly, in a supplemental decision issued on July 19, 2007 (Docket # 253), this Court granted plaintiff’s application for entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which paved the way for immediate appellate review of my decision enforcing the TAP releases. The following day, July 20, 2007, plaintiff served their motion for class certification, and on February 5, 2008, Kodak served its opposition to the motion for class certification. Once the class certification motions were served, disputes over the disclosures made in support of expert opinions arose which required additional hearings and determinations by the Court.
Meanwhile, as a direct result of my decision enforcing the TAP releases, and while the appeal of that decision was being prosecuted in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, plaintiffs filed a second class action lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court. In granting summary judgment to Kodak on the TAP release issue the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. Davis v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2007 WL
6

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 7 of 59
952042, at *12. Thus, on September 27, 2007, plaintiffs Alston, Rice and a third individual, Thomas Gainey, pursued their state law claims and filed a class action race discrimination suit in New York State Supreme Court. In their state court lawsuit, plaintiffs sought to represent a putative class of African American former employees of Kodak who had signed releases that arguably encompassed the claims plaintiffs were pursuing against Kodak. One of the claims asserted in the state court action was for common law fraud. More particularly, plaintiffs and the class they sought to represent alleged that they were fraudulently induced into signing releases in violation of New York law. On October 17, 2007, Kodak responded to the state court action by removing the lawsuit to federal court. See Case # 07-cv-6512 at Docket # 1. According to Kodak, the fraud claims asserted in the state lawsuit were directly related to the administration of an ERISA regulated employee benefit plan and thus were completely preempted by ERISA. Once removed, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to New York State Supreme Court. See id. at Docket # 7.
The motion to remand was referred to this Court by Judge Larimer for a Report and Recommendation. On September 24, 2008, I issued a Report and Recommendation (see id. at Docket # 18) recommending that plaintiffs’ motion to remand should be granted. Kodak filed objections (see id. at Docket # 19) to my Report and
7

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 8 of 59
Recommendation that have been stayed pending determination of the instant motion to approve the settlement in these two related class action lawsuits.2
Settlement Negotiations One need only look at the Court’s docket to substantiate the determination of all parties to aggressively litigate this case on the merits. The litigation, handled by experienced lawyers, was professional but nonetheless extremely hard fought. Judicial intervention and supervision was necessary throughout the litigation, not only in terms of deciding contested motions and applications, but also by my participation in numerous chamber conferences, telephone conferences and review of letter applications and requests. Hundreds of thousands of documents were exchanged during the discovery phase, 56 depositions were conducted that took 76 days to complete. In February 2008, after plaintiffs and Kodak had served their briefs as to class certification and the risks associated with defending and prosecuting the action necessarily became more concrete, the parties began settlement negotiations. To assist in and provide structure during the negotiations, the parties engaged
2 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for the limited purposes of determining whether to approve the settlement in Alston v. Eastman Kodak Co., 07-cv-6512 (W.D.N.Y.) (Docket # 24).
8

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 9 of 59
Eric D. Green, Esq., an experienced mediator, law professor and founder of Resolutions, LLC. The settlement negotiations continued over many months and encompassed discussions as to both monetary and equitable relief. Numerous in-person meetings and conference calls were convened in an effort to negotiate and finalize a complete settlement agreement. On April 17, 2009, the parties reached agreement on the terms of a complete settlement.
The Settlement Terms: The Settlement Agreement (Docket # 313) provides monetary relief for every member of the Class who did not exclude themselves from the Settlement following their receipt of the Notice by returning an opt-out letter to the Claims Administrator. The Agreement provides for the payment of $21,376,500.00 (the “Settlement Fund”). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Fund will be distributed to the 3008 Class Members who did not timely opt-out of participating in the Settlement. The Settlement Agreement proposes the following distribution of the settlement funds:
1. The amount of $9,655,500.00 shall be paid to the Class members as follows: a. Category A: for each Class member who signed a release of claims in connection with Kodak’s TAP program, he/she shall each receive $1,000.00. There are 1180 Settlement Class Members in this
9

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 10 of 59
category. The total amount allocated for this group is $1,180,000.00. b. Category B: for each Class member who executed an ADR release but not a TAP release, he/she shall each receive $2,250.00. There are 79 Class Members in this category. The total amount allocated for this group is $177,750.00. c. Category C: for each Class member who did not execute either a TAP or ADR release, and who worked at least six months or more for Kodak, he/she shall each receive a minimum of $3,000.00 plus an amount proportionate to the number of weeks he/she worked for Kodak as reflected in Kodak’s electronic records provided in this litigation. For each Class member who did not execute either a TAP or ADR release, and who worked less than six months or more for Kodak, he/she shall each receive $1,000.00. There are 1762 Class members in Category C. The total amount allocated for this group is $8,297,750.00. 2. A total gross payment of $600,000.00 for service awards to the twelve named plaintiffs (Courtney Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle,
10

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 11 of 59
Maria Scott, Victor Smith, Edna Williams, Gladys Alston, Thomas Gainey, and Carrie Rice, and the estate of Olin Singletary), who will each receive a service award of $50,000.3 3. A total gross payment of $70,000.00 for service awards to the following thirteen individuals who submitted declarations in support of plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and were subject to being deposed (Andrew Gissendanner, Artiville Roberts, J.D. Bonham, Catherine Cliff, Abraham Cyrus, Thaddeus Drains, John Graham, Cleveland Brown, Raymond Carter, Garland Lockett, Sharon Magnolia, Deloris Monroe, and Cornell Walker), as well as ECJ Board Member Mary Dukes, with each receiving $5,000.00 to compensate them for their time and expenses on behalf of the Class. 4. A total gross amount of $458,000.00 shall be allocated to pay ECJ members who are current or former Kodak employees. This includes individual payments of up to
3 The proposed settlement submitted to the Court provided service awards in the amount of $75,000 for the named plaintiffs. As discussed later in this Decision and Order, after the preliminary approval hearing plaintiffs notified the Court that they were voluntarily reducing the requested service awards from $75,000 to $50,000 for each named plaintiff. All the service awards are in addition to what the plaintiffs would receive under the other provisions of the settlement agreement.
11

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 12 of 59
$500 per person for reimbursement of their time and
expenses in participating in the ECJ, with any remainder
being donated directly to the ECJ.
5. A total gross amount of $9.7 million to compensate
plaintiffs’ counsel for their attorney fees and reimburse them for expenses incurred.4
6. An amount not to exceed $140,000.00 to reimburse the
Claims Administrator for their fees and costs, including
the cost of providing the Notice of Class Action
Settlement to the Class and administering the Settlement.
7. A total gross amount of up to $453,000.00 to compensate
the Labor Economists/Statisticians and Industrial
Psychologist (collectively, the “Experts”) for their
future time and expenses in connection with the work
described in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of the Settlement
4 The motion for attorney fees (Docket # 319) was separately briefed and argued before this Court. The hearing on the motion for attorney fees was held on December 1, 2009, during which the Court posed questions and concerns. Counsel submitted additional briefs in January 2010. During the December 1, 2009 hearing, counsel advised the Court that under the terms of the Settlement Agreement the issue of the fairness of the settlement as to the class is an issue “independent” from the determination as to the fairness of the requested attorney fees. See Transcript of December 1, 2009 (Docket # 338) at pp. 80-82. Since counsel are in agreement that implementation of the class settlement should proceed independent of the Court’s determination on the application for attorney fees, the Court has decided to separately consider and rule on the pending fee application (Docket # 319).
12

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 13 of 59
Agreement, and to implement the programmatic relief provisions set forth in subparagraphs of Section 7 of the Settlement Agreement. In addition to the above-outlined monetary consideration, the Settlement Agreement also provides for non-monetary relief. Specifically, the Settlement provides for the following equitable relief over a four-year term:
! Kodak will maintain and enforce non-discrimination and anti retaliation policies designed to assure equal employment opportunity for its employees;
! Kodak will enforce a policy of not knowingly maintaining or enacting any policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against any Settlement Class Member or other African American employee on the basis of race;
! Kodak will not retaliate against any Settlement Class Member or other African American employee because he or she: (1) complained of or opposed discrimination on the basis of race at Kodak; (2) testified, furnished information or participated in any investigation,
13

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 14 of 59
proceeding, or hearing, whether in connection with this lawsuit or any other complaint of racial discrimination at Kodak that may be asserted in the future; or (3) sought and/or received monetary and/or non-monetary relief pursuant to this Settlement;
! Kodak will retain an Industrial Psychologist to assist it in reviewing, enhancing, developing, and/or recommending policies and practices designed to reinforce Kodak’s equal opportunity employment policies and practices with regard to compensation, performance evaluations, promotions, and job assignments;
! Kodak will retain two Labor Economists/Statisticians to study existing disparate impact analyses of practices relating to annual evaluations, pay and promotion decisions and to make recommendations to improve those analyses;
! Kodak will develop further enhancements to its existing equal opportunity and diversity training, which may include conducting new training sessions designed to further enhance the effectiveness of Kodak’s training 14

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 15 of 59
programs. The goal of these enhancements is to continue to ensure that all supervisors understand their responsibility and obligation to report and respond to any alleged violations of Kodak’s equal opportunity policies. Within one year of the settlement, Kodak will provide Class Counsel with a written summary of its efforts to expand and enhance its training programs;
! Kodak will maintain and enforce equal opportunity complaint procedures for violations of those policies, and shall enhance its existing equal opportunity training to place even greater emphasis on its complaint procedures and every employee’s obligation to identify potential violations of Kodak’s EOE policies by utilizing the complaint procedures;
! Kodak will develop a database or spreadsheet to track all complaints of discrimination at Kodak and the resolution/status of such complaints;
! Kodak will empower its External Diversity Advisory Panel to serve as the compliance panel for this Settlement and ensure that the Settlement Agreement is followed. The 15

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 16 of 59

ECJ will be able to recommend two individuals to work with the External Diversity Advisory Panel for this purpose; and

! No later than thirty (30) days after the Final Approval

date, Kodak will provide to each of its current employees

in the United States a written communication that

reflects the Company’s commitment to diversity, and equal

employment opportunity.

At least once annually

thereafter during the term of this Agreement, Kodak shall

provide a similar communication to each of its then

current employees in the United States.

The

communications will be signed and issued by the Chief

Executive Officer of Kodak.

Finally, for the four-year term of this Settlement Agreement, Kodak shall provide an annual report to Class Counsel relating to its compliance with the terms of this Settlement.
Notice to the Class On June 4, 2009, after an extensive preliminary approval hearing,5 this Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed

5 The preliminary approval hearing was held on May 19, 2009. 16

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 17 of 59
settlement, and approved the “Notice of Class Action Settlement” (the “Notice”). (Docket # 315). The Court directed the parties to mail the Notice to the Class pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, within ten business days after the Preliminary Approval Date, defendant was directed to provide to the Claims Administrator a list of all Proposed Class Members, including last known address and telephone number, social security number and employee ID number. See Settlement Agreement (Docket # 313) at section VIII. The Claims Administrator was directed to mail the Notice to Proposed Class Members by United States first class mail, postage prepaid, within ten business days after the date after defendant provided the list of all Proposed Class Members. See id. In compliance with the Court’s directions, on June 29, 2009, the Claims Administrator mailed the Notice to the Class Members based on the list of updated addresses for Class Members that both Kodak and Class Counsel provided the Claims Administrator with. The Notice advised Class Members of their right to object and to exclude themselves from the Settlement by mailing a written objection or opt-out statement by August 3, 2009. Out of the total class of 3020 members, only twelve opted out and only eleven mailed objections.
17

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 18 of 59
The Final Fairness Hearing Over two full days (October 23, 2009 and on November 5, 2009), this Court held a final fairness hearing in accordance with Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) with respect to the proposed settlement. As expected, the hearing attracted considerable interest. Arrangements were made by the Court to utilize the large ceremonial courtroom for the hearing and allowing those unable to gain seating in the courtroom to watch the proceedings by closed circuit video conference in the jury assembly room. Several hundred interested individuals, most of them members of the organizational plaintiff (ECJ), attended the hearing. On the second day of the hearing, the ceremonial courtroom was used along with two closed circuit locations, the second large courtroom and the jury assembly room. During the final fairness hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs and Kodak gave lengthy presentations in support of the settlement. In addition, over sixty individuals addressed the Court either in support of or opposition to the settlement. Many of those who spoke were individuals who were members of ECJ but were excluded from participating in the monetary benefits of the proposed settlement because the dates of their employment with Kodak were outside of the defined settlement class. Some of these individuals had already corresponded directly with the Court between the time
18

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 19 of 59
of the preliminary approval hearing and the final fairness hearings voicing their objections and concerns with respect to the proposed settlement.
It is important to note that in advance of the final fairness hearing and because of the volume and nature of correspondence received by the Court6, I notified all counsel that I would allow any individual who wanted to address the Court as to the fairness of the settlement the opportunity to do so. I made this decision notwithstanding that many individuals who wanted to address the Court would not be obtaining monetary relief contemplated by the settlement if the settlement was approved. In my view, one of the issues presented in terms of the fairness of the settlement was the establishment of the “cut-off date” for employment with Kodak in order to be included in the proposed class. The correspondence received by the Court indicated that a significant number of former employees were upset that the class defined by the settlement would not allow them to share in the proposed monetary relief because their employment with Kodak was not encompassed by the class as defined in the settlement agreement. Whether the class definition was fair to those excluded from the class depended in large part on
6 The Court forwarded copies of all correspondence received relating to the case and the settlement to counsel for plaintiffs and Kodak.
19

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 20 of 59
the legal basis for the definition of the proposed class. Thus, in
addition to allowing any former employee of Kodak to speak at the
hearing, I also directed counsel to brief the effect the statute of
limitations had on the settlement negotiations and the settlement
agreement as proposed. Counsel for both plaintiffs and Kodak
objected to the Court allowing a former employee of Kodak who was
not part of the defined class from speaking as to the fairness of
the proposed monetary relief in the settlement agreement.7 The
Court denied the objection and allowed any former employee of Kodak
who wanted to be heard on the fairness of the settlement to speak.
As indicated above, over sixty individuals spoke during the
two-day hearing. Those who addressed the Court introduced numerous
exhibits, which, to the extent relevant,8 have been considered by
7 Counsel did not object to allowing former Kodak employees who were not included in the defined class from speaking as to the fairness of the non-monetary relief so long as the employee was a member of the ECJ. 8 During the fairness hearings ECJ representative Lizzie Cyrus asked the Court to listen to (1) recorded conversations of class counsel explaining the proposed settlement agreement to ECJ members and (2) a surreptitiously recorded conversation between Clayborne E. Chavers, Esq., one of plaintiffs’ class counsel and Ms. Cyrus. Ms. Cyrus admitted that she deliberately misrepresented her identity to Mr. Chavers when she spoke to him. See Transcript of October 23, 2009 Proceedings (Docket # 335) at pp. 173-184 and November 5, 2009 Proceedings (Docket # 336) at pp. 166-169. Plaintiffs filed a motion for protective order (Docket # 328) to prohibit the introduction of the tapes of these conversations or, in the alternative, to deem the recordings not relevant to the issues that the Court must determine. I agree with plaintiffs that the tapes as described are not relevant and will not be considered.
20

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 21 of 59
the Court. Despite strong disagreements as to the fairness of the
settlement, every person who addressed the Court was respectful and
followed the Court’s direction to focus their comments to the
fairness of the proposed settlement.
Discussion I. Class Certification
Plaintiffs have moved for final approval of the Settlement
Class. On June 4, 2009, this Court preliminarily certified this
case as a class action under FRCP Rule 23(b)(3). (Docket # 315).
Specifically, the Court preliminarily certified the Class as
follows:
All African-American individuals employed by Kodak in the United States for at least one day between January 1, 1999 and May 18, 2006, excluding interns/co-ops, individuals who were officers or executives, and individuals who previously entered into individual releases (other than or in addition to TAP or ADR releases) as part of individual settlement agreements with Kodak.
Putting aside the issue of privilege, the substance of legal advice as to the fairness of the settlement as given by class counsel to his clients is of no concern to this Court in the present proceeding. The Court must make an independent determination of the fairness of the proposed settlement. Similarly, the surreptitiously recorded conversations between Ms. Cyrus and Mr. Chavers is not relevant to issues before the Court. Because the Court has declined to consider the content of the tapes, plaintiffs’ motion for protective order (Docket # 328) is denied as moot.
21

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 22 of 59
See Docket # 315. The parties now jointly argue that class certification is appropriate pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23 (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, I agree.
Before a class may be certified, the party seeking class certification must satisfy two requisites under FRCP Rule 23. First, plaintiffs must show that the four requirements under Rule 23(a) are met: (i) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical; (ii) there are questions of law and fact common to the class; (iii) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (iv) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Second, plaintiffs must show that at least one of the provisions of FRCP Rule 23(b) is satisfied. Here, plaintiffs seek to show they satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
22

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 23 of 59
A. Requirements of Rule 23(a) 1. Numerosity: The class is undeniably large, and joinder of all the members would be a formidable challenge. The parties agree that the Settlement Class here meets the numerosity requirement because there are over 3000 members of the putative settlement class. See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir. 1995) (stating that “numerosity is presumed at a level of 40 members”); Edge v. C. Tech Collections, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 85, 89 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)(“Generally, courts will find a class sufficiently numerous when it comprises forty or more members.”). In any event, “impracticable” joinder of all the members simply means difficult or inconvenient, not impossible, joinder. See Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 935 (2d Cir. 1993)(“Impracticable does not mean impossible.”). Under this standard, the numerosity requirement is certainly met. Kodak produced Human Resources data including the time period from January 1, 1995 to May 1, 2005. The Human Resources data produced contains information for 5,884 African American employees. Thus, plaintiffs have offered reasonable proof that their claims meet the numerosity requirement. In determining whether a proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, courts consider various factors, including “judicial economy arising from the avoidance of a multiplicity of actions, geographic
23

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 24 of 59
dispersion of class members, financial resources of class members, the ability of claimants to institute individual suits, and requests for prospective injunctive relief which would involve future class members.” See Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d at 936. I find that the application of these factors to the instant action does support a grant of class certification. First, the prospective class members are geographically dispersed, as they are located throughout the United States. Second, the proposed members’ limited economic resources make it unlikely that separate actions would be brought if the plaintiffs' motion were denied. The Court further finds that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable, as many may be reluctant to serve as named plaintiffs in an action against the company by whom many are still currently employed or receive retirement benefits. In addition, a significant aspect of the relief plaintiffs seek in this case is injunctive in nature. In sum, the numerosity requirement is thus met, as “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable” and certification is warranted in regard to the prerequisite of numerosity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).
2. Commonality: The commonality requirement is met if plaintiffs’ grievances share a common question of law or of fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). It is “not require[d] that each class member have identical claims as long as at least one common
24

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 25 of 59
question of fact or law is evident.” In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., 224 F.R.D. 555, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Here, common issues of law and fact predominate over the case. The issues primarily concern Kodak’s policies and practices in the workplace with respect to its African American employees. Plaintiffs’ statistical evidence resulting from Kodak’s own internal [EEOC] study, along with the expert reports of Dr. Madden and Dr. Greenwald, supports their class allegations and presents common issues shared by plaintiffs and Class members. Plaintiffs’ allegation that Kodak utilized a centralized policy or practice of delegating substantial discretion to its supervisors to make personnel decision in the area of wages, promotions, performance appraisals, job assignments, and layoffs, to the detriment of its African American employees, presents a common issue of fact sufficient to support a finding of commonality. Moreover, plaintiffs have proffered evidence suggesting that Kodak’s performance appraisal system is deficient in its design and that Kodak fails to provide proper training to its supervisors and managers who use this system. This is further proof of common questions of fact, supporting a finding of commonality.
The common issues here predominate over any individual variations and are sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement, which is “generally considered a ‘low hurdle’ easily
25

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 26 of 59

surmounted.” In re Prudential Secs. Inc. Ltd. P'ships Litig., 163

F.R.D. 200, 206 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)(citation and internal

quotations omitted). Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the core

class grievances flow out of a centralized pay, promotion and

performance appraisal system which allegedly favored white

employees at the expense of African American employees.

3. Typicality: Typicality requires that the claims of the

class representatives be typical of those of the Class, and “is

satisfied when each class member's claim arises from the same

course of events and each class member makes similar legal

arguments to prove the defendant's liability.” Robidoux, 987 F.2d

at 936. In this case, the claims of the representative plaintiffs

and the claims of every class member arise from similar conduct by

Kodak -- alleged discriminatory employment practices. The claims

of the representative plaintiffs are based on the same legal

theories and pattern of allegedly unlawful conduct as the claims of

each member of the Class. Reduced to their essentials, the claims

of both the class representatives and the proposed class members

rest upon allegations that Kodak discriminated against its African

American employees in the area of wages, promotions, performance

appraisals, job assignments and layoffs.

The successful

prosecution of both sets of claims would therefore require the

named plaintiffs to make legal arguments similar to those of the

26

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 27 of 59
proposed class members. To the extent there is any variation, such differences do not defeat the typicality requirement. See In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 191 F.R.D. 369, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)(“Typicality does not require that the situations of the named representatives and the class members be identical.”). Accordingly, Rule 23(a)(3’s) typicality requirement is satisfied.
4. Adequacy: To establish adequacy of representation, plaintiffs must show (1) that plaintiffs' counsel is competent to handle the case and (2) that there are no conflicts of interest among the class members. See In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., Inc., 960 F.2d 285, 291 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997)(“The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.”).
With respect to the first prong, the attorneys representing the putative class are qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation. Plaintiffs’ counsel have experience with complex class action litigation in federal courts. Plaintiffs’ counsel have vigorously pursued all rights and interests of plaintiffs and the Class, and I am confident that they will continue to do so. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have competently handled the variations in the plaintiffs’ positions and worked hard to obtain a settlement that resolves issues faced by all members of
27

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 28 of 59
the Class. Plaintiffs have thus shown that the first prong of the adequacy requirement is satisfied.
With respect to the second prong, the adequacy requirement is not satisfied unless the class representatives are part of the Class and “possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 625-26 (citations and internal quotations omitted). In this case, the interests of the named plaintiffs and the Class are the same, as they both seek to address Kodak’s challenged centralized policies and practices at issue. The class representatives suffered the same specific injury as the class members –– discrimination based on race in the workplace. Moreover, the class representatives’ efforts to establish Kodak’s pattern or practice of discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation will not pose any conflict of interest with the virtually identical claims of the class members. The class representatives also have the same interest as the rest of the class members and are in a similar position with respect to their ability to obtain a remedy in view of Kodak's defenses. Under these circumstances, there appears to be no actual or potential conflict of interest between the class representatives and the class members they seek to represent. For the foregoing reasons, Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy requirement has been satisfied.
28

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 29 of 59
B. Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) To certify a class, plaintiffs must also satisfy one of the provisions of Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs urge the Court to find under Rule 23(b)(3) “that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 1. Predominance: “The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 623. To meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs must establish that “the issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the class as a whole,. . . predominate over those issues that are subject only to individualized proof.” Cordes & Co. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 502 F.3d 91, 107-08 (2d Cir. 2007)(citation and quotation omitted). Here, class treatment is appropriate because members of the Class allege the same discriminatory employment practices of Kodak. The same evidence would be used to prove the claims against Kodak whether the claims proceed as a class action or individual actions. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs meet the predominance requirement. See
29

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 30 of 59

In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 169 F.R.D. 493, 517

(S.D.N.Y. 1996)(noting that the predominance requirement is

generally satisfied “unless it is clear that individual issues will

overwhelm the common questions”).

2. Superiority: Rule 23(b)(3) further requires “that a class

action [be] superior to other available methods for fairly and

efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(b)(3). In assessing whether to certify a class under Rule

23(b)(3), a court should consider the following nonexclusive

factors: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually

controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the

extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy

already commenced by or against members of the class; and (C) the

desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of

the claims in the particular forum.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(b)(3)(A)-(C). These factors weigh in favor of certification.9

With respect to the first factor, the individual members of

the Class do not have a substantial interest in individually

9 When faced with a request for settlement-only class certification, a district court need not consider Rule 23(b)(3)(D)’s fourth factor, which is “the likely difficulties in managing a class action.” See Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 620. It should be noted, however, that Kodak has identified numerous manageability issues relating to class certification. See Kodak’s Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Preliminary Approval of Settlement (Docket # 310).
30

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 31 of 59
prosecuting their cases. While the class-wide damages are considerable in the aggregate, the individual damages may be too small to make litigation worthwhile. The advantage of the class action is that it permits plaintiffs “to pool claims which would be uneconomical to litigate individually.” Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Schutts, 472 U.S. 797, 809 (1985). Certification is favored where, as here, the individual class members “may have insufficient economic justification for commencing expensive litigation.” In re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litig., 167 F.R.D. 374, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
The second and third factors also weigh in favor of certification. The Court is unaware of any other related cases pending in other state or federal courts. This Court is an appropriate forum for this case as it has authority to approve a release of nationwide class claims. Based on a consideration of these factors, the Court concludes that a class action is a superior method of adjudicating this case and that certification of the Settlement Class is appropriate. The Settlement Class is therefore certified. II. Approval of the Settlement Agreement
Having determined that this case meets the requirements for a settlement class action pursuant to Rule 23, the Court turns next to an examination of the settlement terms. A court may approve a
31

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 32 of 59
class action settlement only after holding a hearing and finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(2). In making this determination, the court must consider both the procedural fairness of the settlement negotiations and the substantive fairness of the settlement itself. McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790, 803-04 (2d Cir. 2009); D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2001). “When a settlement is negotiated prior to class certification, as is the case here, it is subject to a higher degree of scrutiny in assessing its fairness.” D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d at 85.
1. Procedural Fairness: In assessing the fairness of the negotiating process, the court reviewing a proposed settlement must “pay close attention to the negotiating process” and specifically that (1) the proposed settlement “resulted from arm's-length negotiations”; (2) that plaintiffs’ lawyers possessed the necessary ability and experience to negotiate a fair settlement; and (3) that plaintiffs’ counsel have “engaged in the discovery, necessary to effective representation of the class's interests.” McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d at 804. A presumption of fairness may arise when the court determines that the class settlement was achieved after “arm’s-length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.” Id. at 803 (citation and quotations omitted).
32

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 33 of 59
The Court finds that the proposed settlement meets the requirement of procedural fairness. Although the Court was not directly involved in the mediation or settlement process, it is clear that the settlement was achieved only after extensive litigation and discovery had occurred allowing both sides to understand the risks of proceeding further in the litigation. The parties have advised that the general framework of the settlement was achieved only with the assistance of an experienced and skilled mediator10 and, even then, further negotiations and compromise were necessary to reach a final agreement. Moreover, this Court has firsthand knowledge of the experience and ability of plaintiffs’ counsel and determines that counsel was not only capable, but also determined to vigorously represent the plaintiffs in order to achieve a fair and just result for the proposed settlement class.
2. Substantive Fairness: The substantive fairness of the settlement is examined according to the so-called “Grinnell
10 The mediator, Professor Eric Green, has experience in mediating complex class action lawsuits. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 117 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court notes that “[a]rm’s-length negotiations involving counsel and a mediator raise a presumption that the settlement they achieved meets the requirements of due process.” McMahon v. Olivier Cheng Catering & Events, LLC, No. 08 Civ. 8713(PGG), 2010 WL 2399328, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2010). During the final fairness hearing, several ECJ members opposed to the settlement suggested that Mr. Green was a Kodak affiliated agent or employee. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I find those claims to be without factual support.
33

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 34 of 59
factors”. City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000). The Grinnell factors are: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d at 463. Having determined that negotiations which culminated in the settlement agreement were procedurally fair, the Court now turns to an examination of the substantive merits of the proposed settlement in light of the Grinnell factors.
Complexity, expense and likely duration of litigation: “Most class actions are inherently complex and settlement avoids the costs, delays and multitude of other problems associated with them.” In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff'd, 236 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001). The prior proceedings in this case attest to the unusual complexity
34

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 35 of 59
of this litigation and the significant costs to all parties that would be incurred by continued litigation. While the parties have aggressively litigated this case to this point, the fact remains that substantial hurdles remain and it could be years before class members achieved any recovery, if they recovered at all. See In re Veeco Instruments Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 05 MDL 0165(CM), 2007 WL 4115809, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2007)(approving settlement and concluding that “[d]elay, not just at the trial stage but through post-trial motions and the appellate process, would cause Class Members to wait years for any recovery, further reducing its value”). Indeed, plaintiffs’ counsel estimated a trial on the class action claims “would last at least three months, and could last conceivably longer.” See Transcript of October 23, 2009 (Docket # 335) at p. 30. Moreover, the considerable expense and duration of further litigation would disadvantage the class members by potentially reducing the class recovery and providing a disincentive to later settlement. Thus, the Court agrees with both parties that litigating this case through trial would be a complex, expensive11 and time consuming process. Application of the first Grinnell factor weighs heavily in favor of approval of the
11 Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that class counsel had expended 1.6 million dollars “on out-of-pocket expenses on this case to date”, including hundreds of thousands of dollars on experts. See Transcript of October 23, 2009 proceedings at pp. 32-33.
35

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 36 of 59
Settlement. Reaction of the Settlement Class to the Settlement: Members of
the class as defined appear to be overwhelmingly in favor of the Settlement. Adequate notice of the proposed settlement was provided to the class members setting forth clear instructions as to how to submit objections to the Court.12 Of approximately 3020 class members, only eleven (i.e., approximately one third of 1%) filed any objection with the Claims Administrator, and only twelve class members asked to be excluded from the Settlement.13 See September 23, 2009 Declaration of Edward J. Sincavage annexed as Exhibit “2” to Docket # 324. The small number of opt-outs and objections relative to the size of the Class indicates a positive reaction of the Class. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 396 F.3d at 118 (concluding that only eighteen objections from a class of five million was indicative of the adequacy of the settlement); D'Amato,
12 In addition to the Court approved notices, class counsel advertised the settlement on an internal website known to many class members: www.kodakdiscrimination.com.
13 As stated earlier, many of those who spoke at the final approval hearing and otherwise communicated with the Court in writing, were former employees of Kodak who were excluded from the definition of the class as it was defined. While many of these individuals objected to the Court approving the settlement as proposed because they would not share in the monetary benefits of the settlement, they are not “counted” as objections filed with the Claims Administrator. Their dissatisfaction with the class definition was recognized by the Court during the final approval hearing and is addressed in this Decision and Order.
36

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 37 of 59
236 F.3d at 86-87 (holding that the district court properly concluded that eighteen objections from a class of 27,883 weighed in favor of settlement). Given the exceedingly small number of class members who opted out or objected to the Settlement, the Court finds that the reaction of the Class (as defined by the Settlement Agreement) has been overwhelmingly positive and this weighs in favor of Settlement approval.
Stage of the proceedings and amount of discovery completed: The Settlement Agreement in this case was not negotiated in the early stages of the dispute. The parties entered into the Settlement Agreement only after extensive discovery and litigation. During the discovery process, the parties were able to develop the facts necessary to evaluate the claims and adequacy of the Settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from Kodak and others, conducted dozens of depositions, retained and consulted with experts, extensively litigated discovery issues before this Court, and prepared comprehensive motions seeking nationwide class certification. Further, Kodak disclosed to plaintiffs an electronic copy of its human resource database which was thereafter analyzed by plaintiffs’ statistical experts. The Court simply has no concern that pretrial discovery was conducted to simply justify a settlement, but truly was “an aggressive effort to ferret out
37

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 38 of 59
facts helpful to prosecution of the suit.” Frank v. Eastman Kodak Co., 228 F.R.D. 174, 185 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)(internal quotation and citation omitted). In sum, I conclude that the parties have conducted sufficient discovery to understand the strengths and weaknesses of plaintiffs’ claims. Hence, this Grinnell factor weighs in favor of settlement approval.
Risks of establishing liability and damages: The fourth and fifth Grinnell factors require the Court to consider the risks plaintiffs face in establishing liability and damages. While the Court “is not required to decide the merits of the case or resolve unsettled legal questions,” Frank v. Eastman Kodak Co., 228 F.R.D. at 185 (quoting Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88 n.14 (1981)), it is apparent that this litigation is not only fraught with questions as to Kodak’s liability but also has several important unsettled legal questions.
Plaintiffs candidly and accurately recognize the risks associated with establishing liability and damages against Kodak in this case. Kodak has vigorously denied wrongdoing, and plaintiffs acknowledge that “there exists the risk that Defendant might be able to prevail on summary judgment, trial or on appeal.” See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law annexed to Docket # 324 at p. 36. For example, plaintiffs face difficult and evolving issues as to the statute of limitations for their claims. See, e.g., Exhibit
38

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 39 of 59
“5” annexed to Docket # 324. Plaintiffs also admit that defendant’s pending summary judgment motion (Dockets # 243 and # 245) on the hostile work environment claims present risks as the Court could ultimately dismiss or limit those claims. At this juncture of the litigation perhaps the most obvious risk to plaintiffs relates to the issue of releases. Over eleven hundred putative class members signed TAP releases at the conclusion of their employment with Kodak and this Court has upheld the validity of those releases. If the Court’s decision on the TAP releases was affirmed by the Second Circuit, those plaintiffs could not pursue any federal discrimination claims and would face a similar obstacle in prosecuting their state claims against Kodak. In addition to the TAP releases, 79 putative class members executed an “ADR” release. Although the issue was never directly litigated in this case, Judge Larimer upheld the validity of an ADR release in a separate lawsuit involving former Kodak employees. Kodak most certainly would seek a similar ruling in this litigation. See Wright v. Eastman Kodak Co., 445 F. Supp. 2d 314, 320 (W.D.N.Y. 2006)(“Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways: enjoying the substantial monetary benefits that Kodak agreed to give them as consideration for the releases, but then asking that they be excused from living up to their end of the bargain by honoring those releases.”).
39

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 40 of 59
Other issues and circumstances exist that present substantial risks to plaintiffs in terms of proving both liability and damages. That many of plaintiffs’ claims arose over a decade ago presents obvious difficulties in obtaining discovery and presenting evidence at trial. Moreover, even if plaintiffs prevailed at trial, they would face complex evidentiary and legal issues in establishing damages. Indeed, Kodak’s damage expert, Harvard University Professor Dr. David E. Bloom, analyzed historical payroll data and concluded that (1) there were no race based disparities in promotion and compensation at Kodak between 1999 and 2005, and (2) African-Americans were, in fact, statistically favored in promotion and base salary increases during the 1999-2005 time period. See January 15, 2010 Declaration of Dr. David E. Bloom, Ph.D., annexed as Exhibit “A” to Docket # 345. These risks and others make the fairness of the settlement all the more evident and weigh in favor of approving the Settlement Agreement.
Risks of Maintaining the Class Through Trial: The risk of maintaining class status through trial weighs in favor of settlement. Kodak vigorously contests class certification in this case on a variety of grounds and, should the litigation proceed, the merits of Kodak’s arguments remain a looming threat to
40

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 41 of 59
plaintiffs’ efforts to prosecute this case as a nationwide14 class action. From the beginning of this case Kodak has argued with some force that manageability issues made this case unlikely to proceed successfully as a class action, particularly in light of the individual nature of each putative class member’s claims as to both liability and damages. See Kodak’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Preliminary Approval of Settlement (Docket # 310) at pp. 5-8. Even if the Class was certified, there exists a significant risk that the Class could not be maintained through trial. Courts have discretion to re-evaluate the appropriateness of class certification at any time. Absent the Settlement, plaintiffs run the risk that class certification might not be granted, or, if granted, it may have been rejected on appeal or later decertified by the Court. All of these risks support the reasonableness of the proposed settlement.
Ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment: While Kodak has continued to engage in a series of downsizing and restructuring plans in an effort to focus on digital technology, I find that the company could likely withstand a greater judgment than the Settlement contemplates. In this context, however,
14 Although plaintiffs are prosecuting this case as a nationwide class action, the Court could have certified a class that was far less encompassing than plaintiffs sought.
41

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 42 of 59
fairness “does not require that the [defendant] empty its coffers before” a settlement can be found adequate, as “the ability of defendants to pay more, on its own, does not render the settlement unfair, especially where the other Grinnell factors favor approval.” McBean v. City of New York, 233 F.R.D. 377, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). While Kodak remains a substantial company, unpredictable economic risks always exist, particularly in today’s volatile business environment. Providing substantial and certain relief (both monetary and injunctive) eliminates this risk and weighs in favor of final approval of the Settlement.
Range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery and the attendant risks of litigation: The final two Grinnell factors require the Court to consider whether the Settlement falls within the range of reasonableness. “[T]here is a range of reasonableness with respect to a settlement—a range which recognizes the uncertainties of law and fact in any particular case and the concomitant risks and costs necessarily inherent in taking any litigation to completion.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 396 F.3d at 119 (quoting Newman v. Stein, 464 F.2d 689, 693 (2d Cir. 1972)).
Taking into account both the “best possible recovery” and the risks inherent in taking the litigation to completion, I find the proposed settlement to be within the range of reasonableness. The
42

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 43 of 59
proposed settlement provides a substantial and comprehensive remedy to class members. In addition to expansive injunctive relief that benefits all Kodak employees and not just members of the settlement class, the proposed settlement guarantees a cash payment of over 9.6 million dollars to category “A”, “B” and “C” class members. Of those putative class members who did not sign a TAP release, the proposed settlement pays over 8.7 million dollars, a sum that, according to plaintiffs’ damages expert, represents over 40 percent of “lost wages” for Kodak workers in the defined settlement class for the period between 1999 and 2008. See Transcript of November 5, 2009 Proceedings (Docket # 336) at p. 142. Class counsel advised the Court that the overall settlement amount is one of the largest in an employment discrimination class action case in recent history.
But “[t]he dollar amount of the settlement by itself is not decisive in the fairness determination.” In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 597 F. Supp. 740, 762 (E.D.N.Y. 1984). The Court must judge the settlement not only in terms of the best possible recovery, but also upon consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of plaintiffs’ case. See id. As set forth at the final settlement hearing, the attendant risks in proceeding with this litigation were clearly an important consideration in plaintiffs’ decision to settle the case. And, as set forth herein, I find
43

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 44 of 59
those risks to be real and substantial. In sum, I find that the proposed settlement provides a
substantial recovery for the Class and falls within the range of reasonableness in view of the risks of litigation that plaintiffs face.
3. Objections to the Settlement Following notification of the Settlement, eleven of the 3020 class members submitted objections. The majority of the objections surround the adequacy of the monetary relief to class members. Other objections include objections: (1) to the class period incorporated in the class definition; (2) that Kodak is not being held accountable and the Settlement Agreement contains no admission of liability; (3) to the plan of allocation in the Settlement Agreement; and (4) to the proposed service awards. In addition, as explained below, numerous individuals who were excluded from the proposed settlement class voiced objections to the proposed settlement. After careful consideration of the objections and the relevant evidence submitted to support them, I conclude that none of the objections provide an adequate basis to reject the Settlement. Objection to the adequacy of relief: Objections were received that the Settlement should provide more relief. Several class members objected to the amount they are to receive in their
44

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 45 of 59
respective categories pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, complaining that the amounts are too small to compensate them for the many years of discrimination they suffered while employed at Kodak. Similar complaints were heard from those who were not included in the putative class as defined by the Settlement Agreement.
Despite these objections, the fact remains that the vast majority of Class Members have not objected to the proposed settlement. In terms of those actually sharing in the monetary relief, less than one half of one percent objected to the Settlement. Although many of the objections were vigorously asserted, the Court’s fiduciary duty is to protect all Class members –– including the “silent majority” who have not voiced any objections to the Settlement Agreement. “[T]he mere fact that the only class members expressing opinions regarding the settlement were a vocal minority opposing it does not alter the district court's discretion in approving the settlement or its duty to protect the interests of the silent class majority”. Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 823 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir. 1987)(“The district court had a fiduciary responsibility to the silent class members, despite vociferous opposition to the settlement, and their interests properly were protected by the court.”). Many “objectors wrongly assume [that Kodak’s] guilt [for wage discrimination] would
45

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 46 of 59
be proven at trial. Such assumption cannot stand as a proper basis to evaluate the proposed settlement’s fairness.” Thompson v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 55, 66 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)(citing Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 458-59). While seeking greater compensation from Kodak for alleged discrimination may be preferable to the objectors, none of the objectors (within or outside the defined settlement class) have provided the Court any reason to fairly conclude achieving such relief is likely given the numerous substantive and procedural risks associated with proceeding with the litigation.
Objections to the class period incorporated in the class definition: Among the objections made by those not included in the proposed settlement class, the most resounding concerned the definition of the class period, which required employment with Kodak between January 1, 1999 and May 18, 2006. To make sure that this was a reasonable settlement term, the Court required the parties to specifically address this issue in their briefs to the Court and in their presentations during the final fairness hearing.
The Complaint in this case alleges that for many years Kodak engaged in “an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimination against its African American employees,” including discrimination in compensation, promotions, wage and job classifications, and maintaining a hostile work environment. See Third Amended
46

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 47 of 59
Complaint (Docket # 106) at ¶ 3. Plaintiffs also claim that “[w]hen African American employees of Kodak complain[ed] about” the discriminatory practices and policies to Kodak's management, they were “subjected to retaliation.” Id. at ¶ 3(e). In 2004, the EEOC determined that: (1) weekly pay rates for white employees of Kodak were consistently higher than weekly pay rates for black employees; (2) Kodak maintained a hostile work environment with respect to its African American employees; and (3) Kodak retaliated against African American employees who participated in protected activities. See Third Amended Complaint (Docket # 106) at ¶¶ 5051.
While Kodak unequivocally disputes both the determination of the EEOC and the allegations in the Complaint, there can be no dispute that the relationship between Kodak and many of its African-American employees has resulted in workplace tension, distrust and animosity. These emotions were readily apparent during the final fairness hearing. The hard fact is that many former African-American employees of Kodak who believe they too were subjected to race based discrimination in pay, promotions and workplace hostility will not share in the economic benefits of the proposed settlement because the time periods of their employment with Kodak are outside those defined in the settlement class. This hard fact has not only spread further distrust towards Kodak, but
47

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 48 of 59
has also spawned distrust and hostility towards the named plaintiffs and class counsel.
In the final analysis, the definition of the negotiated settlement class was a function of the statute of limitations applicable to the claims asserted by plaintiffs in their Complaint. “The public policy purpose of statutes of limitation is fairness for all parties concerned. They provide a reasonable time in which a Plaintiff must discover and allege that he has been wronged, while providing that a defendant will not be unfairly hauled into court many years after an alleged wrong has occurred, when a defense would be difficult due to the passage of time.” Armbrister v. Roland Int’l Corp., 667 F. Supp. 802, 825 (M.D. Fla. 1987); see also Kahn v. Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co., 970 F.2d 1030, 1042 (2d Cir. 1992)(“The function of a statute of limitations is to set a time after which conduct will not be subject to challenge, on any grounds. After the statutory period has passed, the plaintiffs may not bring the action regardless of the relief requested.”). After reviewing counsels’ submissions on the applicable statute of limitations and considering the representations made at the final fairness hearing as to how the class definition was negotiated, the Court concludes that the parameters of the settlement class are consistent with the periods of limitations relevant to plaintiffs’ claims and hence are a fair and reasonable component of the
48

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 49 of 59
proposed settlement. Of the named plaintiffs in this action, the earliest EEOC
charge was filed by plaintiff Robert Gibson on July 13, 2001. Thereafter, on February 6, 2003, tolling agreements were entered into between Kodak and plaintiffs’ former counsel as to some individuals. The tolling agreements encompassed both Title VII claims and discrimination claims asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The limitations period for Title VII claims requires a plaintiff to file an administrative charge with the EEOC within 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. Using plaintiff Robert Gibson as the basis for class members to “piggy-back” on his claim results in claims being timely if the individual worked for Kodak as of September 16, 2000 or 300 days before Robert Gibson filed his charge with the EEOC.
The statute of limitations period for § 1981 claims, however, is four years (see Jones v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons, Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004)), and provides the broadest possible scope of timely claims for plaintiffs. Based on the tolling agreements, plaintiffs’ § 1981 discrimination claims could arguably reach back four years — from February 6, 2003 (the date set forth in the first tolling agreement) to February 6, 1999. While the Court does not doubt that the negotiated definition of the class will deny compensation to many former employees who believe they were subjected to racial
49

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 50 of 59
discrimination and injustices just as severe and painful as those to whom are included in the class, the law contains limitations on addressing claims of historical discrimination. Here, I find that the parties’ agreement that the class period covers African American employees who worked for Kodak at least one day since January 1, 1999 is consistent with the law and, therefore, is both reasonable and fair. See Kodak’s Memorandum of Law (Docket # 325) at pp. 4-7; Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law (Docket # 324) at pp. 2931.
Objections that Kodak is not being held accountable and the Settlement Agreement contains no admission of liability: I find that since Kodak has agreed to significant injunctive and monetary relief, Kodak is being held accountable for the alleged discrimination despite the fact that they have not admitted liability. Defendants are not required to admit liability when settling a case. Settlement is a compromise for both parties -plaintiffs are guaranteed to receive certain compensation and injunctive relief while Kodak achieves certainty and finality in resolving pending and risky litigation. Thus, this category of objection is not grounds for rejecting the Settlement.
Objections to the plan of allocation of the Settlement: Certain objections relate to the plan of allocation outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Given the variables inherent in this
50

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 51 of 59
litigation (i.e., “TAP Release” plaintiffs, “ADR Release” plaintiffs, “No Release” plaintiffs), the allocation plan in the proposed settlement reflects both innovation and fairness. Assigning the majority of the Settlement’s economic benefits to employees who did not sign releases demonstrates the intent to direct the most compensation to those who did not release discrimination claims in exchange for enhanced severance benefits or other consideration. The variable allocations also indicate the parties considered the impact of this Court’s ruling as to the validity of the releases when negotiating the relative “value” of individual claims. Among plaintiffs who did not sign releases, there clearly is no perfect way to assign a value to their claims of discrimination. Holding individualized “damage” hearings among thousands of individuals from around the country would be costly, time consuming, and unwieldy, and would defeat the purpose of a class action settlement. However, increasing compensation depending on length of service is a reasonable alternative. Varying compensation based on length of service appropriately reflects the fact that longer service will correspond with more harm in terms of both economic damages (longer service equals longer disparity in pay and promotions) and emotional damages (longer service equals greater exposure to a hostile work environment). In sum, I find the allocation plan in the proposed
51

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 52 of 59
settlement to be fair and reasonable. Objections to the proposed service awards: Of all the
components of the proposed settlement, the “service awards” are the most problematic to this Court. I have made no secret of my concerns with respect to the service awards. These concerns do not involve the appropriateness of service awards, particularly in employment discrimination cases such as this. “Employees, former and current, take huge risks when they agree to be named plaintiffs in a class action bringing legal claims of unlawful bad acts by employers. Retaliation, isolation, ostracism by co-workers, ‘black listing’ by future employers, emotional trauma, and fear of having to pay defendants’ legal fees are among the most obvious.” Nantiya Ruan, Bringing Sense to Incentives: An Examination of Incentive Payments to Named Plaintiffs in Employment Discrimination Class Actions, 10 Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J. 395, 396-97 (2006). I recognize and agree that service awards to named plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases are not only an appropriate way of recognizing an individual’s commitment to pursuing justice in the workplace, but also of encouraging others to do the same.
The Court’s concerns relate to the amount of the service awards and specifically the relationship or proportionality of those awards to the recovery allowed for the absent class members. In this regard, I share the views expressed by Judge Gleeson of the
52

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 53 of 59
Eastern District of New York that “[a] particularly suspect arrangement exists where the incentive payments are greatly disproportionate to the recovery set aside for absent class members.” Sheppard v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., No. 94-CV-0403(JG), 2002 WL 2003206, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2002). The danger is that the named plaintiffs are tempted with high incentive awards in exchange for advocating for a settlement that pays suboptimal sums for absent class members. Id. “[C]lass representatives are naturally more inclined to accept a settlement that is not in the best interests of the absent class members they represent if the named plaintiffs are permitted to receive an award in addition to their share of the recovery. The larger the reward, the greater the inclination will be.” Sheppard v. Consol. Edison Co., No. 94-CV-403 (JG), 2000 WL 33313540, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2000)(rejecting proposed class action employment discrimination settlement because of the substantial difference between the monetary relief to the named plaintiffs compared to the absent class members).15
15 Plaintiffs argue that the fact that the amount of the service awards were proposed by the mediator is somehow evidence of their reasonableness. Without diluting the obvious importance of the mediator to achieving the settlement herein, the fact that the mediator proposed $75,000 per plaintiff for service awards does not dilute or alter the Court’s concerns. A mediation is successful if the mediator is able to achieve a settlement agreement. The mediation process leaves it to the parties and their lawyers to
53

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 54 of 59
When the proposed settlement was first presented to the Court, the incentive payments of $75,000 were sought for each named plaintiff. At the preliminary approval hearing, and in subsequent conferences held with all counsel, I voiced my substantial concerns regarding the amount of the incentive awards. See Transcript of May 19, 2009 Proceedings (Docket # 316) at pp. 58-70. After the May 2009 preliminary approval hearing, counsel notified the Court that the named plaintiffs had met and agreed to voluntarily reduce the amount of their service awards from $75,000 to $50,000. The named plaintiffs further agreed to ask the Court to allocate the additional funds resulting from the reduction towards the recovery of the absent class. See Transcript of October 23, 2009 Proceedings (Docket # 335) at p. 69; Stipulation and Order dated August 24, 2010 (Docket # 350).
The named plaintiffs’ proposal to voluntarily reduce the proposed incentive payments by one third diminishes but does not eliminate the Court’s concerns. The disparity between the recovery for the named plaintiffs and the absent class members is still significant. Asking the Court to approve an “across the board”
decide whether the terms of the negotiated settlement are “fair”. Unlike the Court, the mediator is not a fiduciary to the absent class members and has no way of knowing or considering the merits of objections that may be filed during the settlement approval process.
54

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 55 of 59
payment of $50,000 to each named plaintiff also seems peculiar given that there has been no factual showing of equal involvement in the burdens of prosecuting the litigation. Indeed, as developed during the final fairness hearing, some of the named plaintiffs began their work as class representatives in 2004 while others began much later. For example, Thomas Gainey did not become a named plaintiff until 2007 and yet the Settlement Agreement values his contributions to the Class as equal to others who have been a class representative for twice as long. On the other hand, the named plaintiffs are steadfast and unanimous in seeking equal service awards despite disparate contributions of time and effort and I would be remiss if I did not take that fact into consideration as well.
The bottom line is that it is difficult, if not impossible for the Court to calculate with mathematical certainty the “value” of the stigma, the stress, the isolation, the risks and the hardships associated with stepping forward and agreeing to have your name added as a representative plaintiff in a suit such as this. What I can do with certainty is acknowledge the toll such a public role in such a public case would and did take on the named plaintiffs.
Several of the named plaintiffs spoke at the final fairness hearing and the Court was pointed in asking them to explain why the “across the board” service awards were justified. None of the
55

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 56 of 59
plaintiffs who spoke were more eloquent or persuasive than Courtney Davis. Her pro se lawsuit filed in California many years ago was the driving force behind what is now a nationwide class action lawsuit on the verge of a multi million dollar settlement that provides equitable relief to protect future Kodak employees of all races and backgrounds. Ms. Davis explained why she started the lawsuit and the toll it has taken: “I have sacrificed my career, my personal security, and overall general welfare as a named plaintiff. But I have withstood all these things that have been brought against me because of my belief in the God-given right to express oneself through meaningful work, and to be paid a fair and equitable wage for the fruits of one's labor.” See Transcript of November 5, 2009 Proceedings (Docket # 336) at pp. 94-102. Ms. Davis’s testimony at the final fairness hearing was compelling and pays tribute to why substantial service awards are important and appropriate in class action employment discrimination cases such as this:
The named plaintiffs have borne the brunt of the hardship during these many years of litigation where others would not and could not, so that the next generation doesn’t have to go through the pain. . . . [T]his has not been an ordinary case, and as such, we have been required to be more than ordinary named plaintiffs. And to that end, the incentive awards as proposed are appropriate, given the risks and subsequent injuries that have been incurred as a result of stepping forward. The named plaintiffs have labored in collaboration, not alone as separate individuals, but together as one body. Each has
56

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 57 of 59
contributed something without which the others could not have been sustained through these many long years. Each has been the eyes, the ears, the mouth, the heart, the hands and feet that have moved the body – the class — forward in good faith to arrive at this proposed settlement.
Id. at pp. 101-102.16
16 Ms. Davis’s comments were consistent with the point made by one commentator with respect to the “value” named plaintiffs bring to employment discrimination class actions (“EDCAs”):
Courts seldom recognize that the named plaintiffs bring important factual expertise to EDCAs, including necessary knowledge of the patterns and practices of the employers, a necessary component in many EDCAs. Information about the employer's general decision making, promotion and hiring practices, and delegation of duties, are examples of the types of information about the employer that named plaintiffs provide, both in the investigative and discovery phases of the case. At the tail end, the advantage to class members is brought through named plaintiffs' participation in settlement negotiations, consent decrees, and trials, which often results in increased employment benefits and workplace fairness for all class members. This added value that employment discrimination named plaintiffs bring to investigations, prosecutions, and judgments is not easily quantifiable in that a formulaic accounting of hours of time spent on the case does not reflect the nature of the benefits. Instead of taking a restitutionary account of the time spent, courts should make a finding that recognizes the full spectrum of benefits brought to the case by the named plaintiffs.
Nantiya Ruan, Bringing Sense to Incentives: An Examination of Incentive Payments to Named Plaintiffs in Employment Discrimination Class Actions, 10 Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J. 395, 424 (2006) (footnote omitted).
57

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 58 of 59
Had the Court been asked to set the amount of the incentive awards, I might not have chosen the same formula proposed here. But while I recognize that the Court serves as a fiduciary to protect the interests of the absent class members, even as a fiduciary “it is not the Court’s prerogative to pick and choose terms of the settlement, redact portions of the agreement, or substitute terms more to the Court’s liking. Rather, the Court’s duty is to evaluate the settlement as a whole, and determine if the settlement as a whole is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” McBean v. City of New York, 233 F.R.D. 377, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
Upon consideration of all these factors, and based on the unique facts of this case and this settlement as a whole, I find that the voluntarily reduced service awards, while high, are ultimately fair and within a range of reasonableness appropriate for approval.17 Pursuant to stipulation executed by the parties, and class counsels’ November 30, 2009 letter to the Court, I direct that the additional monies available as a result of the reduced service awards be assigned and distributed to “Category C” class members who did not sign any release of claims. Furthermore, and based on the legal authority set forth in counsels’ November 30th letter, I find that the modification of the Settlement Agreement
17 I similarly approve the other service awards set forth in the Settlement Agreement as being within a range of reasonableness.
58

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/10 Page 59 of 59 necessary to reduce the service awards from $75,000 to $50,000 will only benefit members of the Class and therefore a sup~lemental notice to the ~lass is not required.
Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the motions for final approval of the Settlement and for certification of the Settlement Class (Docket # 324), and for final approval of the service awards (Docket # 321), are granted . The Court further denies as moot plaintiffs' motion for protective order (Docket # 328).
SO 6RDBRED.
I;-T'JONATHAN W. FELDMAN uni,.ed States Magistrate Judge
20l/ Dated: September 3,
Rochester, New York
59

 
 Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 44

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EMPLOYEES COMMITTED FOR JUSTICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:04-cv-06098-CJS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
[CLASS ACTION] JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 44
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Employees Committed for Justice (the “ECJ”), an organization of past and current African American employees of Defendant Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”), and individual Plaintiffs Gladys Alston, Travis Curry, Courtney Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Victor Smith, and Edna Williams (the “Individual Plaintiffs”) (the ECJ and the Individual Plaintiffs together referenced as the “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the class they seek to represent, by and through their counsel of record, bring this Third Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”), against Kodak, and allege upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their own acts, and as to all other matters upon information and belief, based upon the investigation made by and through their attorneys, as follows:
II. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiffs bring this action as representatives of a class of all past, current and future African American employees of Kodak (the “Class”). The ECJ brings this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981"), for class-wide injunctive relief, and the Individual Plaintiffs bring this action under Section 1981 for class-wide injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages arising from the terms and conditions of employment imposed by Kodak on the Class. 2. Individual Plaintiffs Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Robert Gibson, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott and Olin Singletary, who have each received Right To Sue Letters from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), also assert claims against Kodak
-2-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 3 of 44
for class-wide injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages on behalf of themselves and the Class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), and the New York Human Rights Law, 15 N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq.
3. Kodak has engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimination against its African American employees. Specifically, as set forth more fully herein:
a. Discrimination in Compensation. Beginning at least as early as 1990, weekly pay rates for Caucasian employees have been consistently higher than weekly pay rates for African American employees. The net advantage for Caucasian employees, according to the EEOC, is approximately one additional wage grade. In addition, Kodak’s discrimination in pay has diminished the pension benefits available to Class members.
b. Discrimination in Promotions. African American employees are promoted at a significantly lower rate than Caucasian employees. Kodak’s failure to promote African American employees to higher levels results in a “Glass Ceiling” preventing African Americans from achieving upward advancement to senior levels at Kodak.
c. Discrimination in Wage Classifications and Job Assignments. Kodak assigns higher wage grades and step increases to Caucasian employees than it does to African American employees. Kodak also assigns better job assignments to Caucasian employees, thus allowing these employees to move ahead and obtain promotions while hindering the advancement of African American employees. Further, Kodak assigns the less desirable, “dirty,” more dangerous jobs to its African American employees, which also limits their advancement opportunities.
d. Harassment/Hostile Work Environment. Kodak maintains and/or has failed
-3-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 4 of 44
to control a continuing pattern and practice of harassment of African American employees by Caucasian employees, resulting in a hostile work environment for Kodak’s African American employees.
e. Retaliation. When African American employees of Kodak complain about the above practices and bring them to the attention of management, they are subjected to retaliation.
4. The racial disparities in compensation, promotions, job classifications and job assignments result from, inter alia, Kodak’s company-wide policy of delegating discretionary authority to managers and department supervisors to make these employment decisions. Kodak’s managers and department supervisors exercise their subjective discretion in a racially discriminatory manner that has a disparate impact on African American employees. Kodak is aware of this practice as it has existed over the years but has failed to remedy its effects. Further, management has not put in place meaningful oversight procedures to ensure that instances of racial discrimination are appropriately addressed.
5. This discrimination represents an ongoing company-wide pattern and practice, rather than a series of isolated incidents. Kodak’s written and unwritten policies and practices subject the Individual Plaintiffs and Class members who are currently employed by Kodak to ongoing discrimination and disparate treatment based on their race. Kodak’s actions constitute a continuing violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class.
6. Absent injunctive relief, Kodak’s unlawful practices will continue, to the detriment of the Class. Broad, class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief is necessary to redress Kodak’s unlawful conduct.
-4-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 5 of 44
III. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff ECJ is an unincorporated association consisting of approximately one thousand African American current and former employees of Kodak. ECJ was founded in 2002 to bring an end to Kodak’s pattern and practice of racial discrimination and the existence at Kodak of a racially hostile work environment. ECJ is governed by an Executive Committee elected by its membership. 8. To pursue its goals and assist its members, ECJ has undertaken the following:
a. attempting to negotiate, through its counsel, a remedy to the ongoing discrimination at Kodak;
b. providing information to members regarding its efforts to remedy the racial discrimination;
c. holding monthly meetings for its membership; d. organizing informational picketing outside of Kodak’s Rochester, New York, facilities regarding the discriminatory practices and environment at Kodak; e. distributing information regarding discrimination at Kodak; f. engaging in public information activities regarding discrimination at Kodak; and g. retaining counsel. 9. In connection with these activities, ECJ has expended funds contributed by its members. Its Executive Committee and members have expended time and energy to pursue the goals of ECJ. 10. Plaintiff Gladys Alston is an African American female citizen and resident of the
-5-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 6 of 44
State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a former employee of Kodak. Ms. Alston is a member and Executive Secretary of the ECJ.
11. Plaintiff Travis Curry is an African American male citizen and resident of the State of Texas, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. He is a former employee of Kodak.
12. Plaintiff Courtney Davis is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a former employee of Kodak.
13. Plaintiff Cynthia Gayden is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak. Ms. Gayden is a member of the ECJ.
14. Plaintiff Robert Gibson is an African American male citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. He is a former employee of Kodak. Mr. Gibson is a member of the ECJ.
15. Plaintiff Jannie Nesmith is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak. Ms. Nesmith is a member of the ECJ.
16. Plaintiff Noralean Pringle is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak. Ms. Pringle is a member of the ECJ.
17. Plaintiff Carrie Rice is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a former
-6-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 7 of 44
employee of Kodak. Ms. Rice is a member of the ECJ. 18. Plaintiff Maria Scott is an African American female citizen and resident of the State
of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak. Ms. Scott is a member of the ECJ and a member of the ECJ’s Executive Committee.
19. Plaintiff Olin Singletary is an African American male citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. He is a former employee of Kodak. Mr. Singletary is a member of the ECJ and a member of the ECJ’s Executive Committee.
20. Plaintiff Victor Smith is an African American male citizen and resident of the State of Texas, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. He is a current employee of Kodak.
21. Plaintiff Edna Williams is an African American female citizen and resident of the State of New York, who has been injured by the acts and practices described herein. She is a current employee of Kodak. Ms. Williams is a member of the ECJ.
22. Defendant Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”), is incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its corporate headquarters located in this District at 343 State Street, Rochester, New York 14650. Founded in 1880, Kodak reported world-wide sales totaling $12.8 billion in 2002 and $13.3 billion in 2003. Kodak employs approximately 64,000 full time equivalent people, of whom approximately 35,400 full time equivalents are employed in the United States. According to Kodak, the actual number of employees may be even greater because some individuals work part-time. Most of Kodak’s employees in the United States work at its facilities in Rochester,
-7-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 8 of 44
New York. IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over claims under the New York Human Rights Law, 15. N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq.
24. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed in this District, and the employment records relevant to such practices are maintained and administered in this District. Kodak has its corporate headquarters, can be found, and conducts business, in the Western District of New York, and acts and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the Western District of New York.
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 25. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all past, present and future African American employees of Kodak (the “Class”). The Individual Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent. 26. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. It is believed by Plaintiffs that the Class numbers in the thousands. 27. There are questions of law or fact common to the Class, including, without limitation:
a. whether Kodak’s common operating practices and procedures since at least 1990 discriminate against African American employees;
b. whether Kodak’s policies have an adverse impact upon the Class, and, if so, whether this impact is justified by business necessity;
-8-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 9 of 44
c. whether Kodak’s policy or practice of granting discretionary authority to its managers and supervisors to make decisions concerning compensation, promotions, job evaluations, job classifications and job assignments negatively affects Class members;
d. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of paying African American employees less than Caucasian employees for the same work;
e. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of grooming Caucasian employees for advancement, while denying these same opportunities to African American employees;
f. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of failing to promote qualified African American employees to higher positions within the Company;
g. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of assigning lesser job classifications or wage grades to African American employees than are assigned to similarly situated Caucasian employees;
h. whether Kodak has a policy or practice of making less desirable work assignments to African American employees than to Caucasian employees;
i. whether African American employees at Kodak are subject to a pattern and practice of racial harassment;
j. whether Kodak’s conduct alleged herein constitutes a hostile work environment for the Class;
k. whether Kodak has a policy and practice of retaliating against Class members who object to or who oppose Kodak’s unlawful employment practices;
l. whether equitable relief is warranted and the nature of such relief; m. whether class-wide compensatory damages are warranted; and
-9-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 10 of 44
n. whether Kodak’s conduct warrants an award of punitive damages. 28. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. The Individual Plaintiffs have been subjected to each form of the discriminatory common operating policies and practices and hostile work environment caused by Kodak. The policies and practices complained of in this Complaint affect the entire Class. 29. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have no conflict with the Class members and have retained counsel who are experienced in class action litigation and cases of this nature. 30. This action is properly maintainable under Rules 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3) because: a) Kodak has maintained an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimination on the basis of race and a hostile work environment, thereby acting or refusing to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate final injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole; and b) questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this case.
VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 31. Kodak employs uniform employment and personnel policies throughout the United States. Kodak's Human Resources administration is centralized at Kodak headquarters, in Rochester, New York. A Human Resources Director for each of Kodak’s business units is located in New York, and any policies and/or practices regarding human resources or employee benefits emanate from Kodak headquarters to the company’s other units nationwide. 32. In early 1998, a group of approximately 130 African American employees took their
-10-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 11 of 44
complaints of discriminatory compensation to the President of the Rochester Chapter of the NAACP, the Reverend Norvel Goff, who communicated the complaints to Kodak.
33. Kodak then conducted an internal wage and promotion analysis, and as a result, acknowledged a disparity in pay and promotions for African American employees in some departments. Kodak announced that it would “pay $10 million in back pay, as well as $3 million in annual raises, to correct race and gender inequalities dating to 1996.” Pursuant to this program, which Kodak publicly called the “Do The Right Thing Award,” Kodak gave some African American employees in some departments an upgrade, along with a small lump-sum payment. Other awards were made to female employees to correct gender-based pay discrepancies.
34. Hundreds of Class members who had suffered racial discrimination were not included in the “Do The Right Thing Award,” and thus, complaints against Kodak by Class members continued to mount.
35. Some Class members filed class-wide Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC. For example, in October 1999, the EEOC’s Buffalo Local Office received multiple Charges of Discrimination against Kodak, alleging, inter alia, that African American employees: 1) received unequal pay; 2) were repeatedly denied promotions; 3) were given lesser job classifications; 4) were given less desirable work assignments; 5) were subjected to a pattern and practice of ongoing harassment and a hostile work environment; and 6) were retaliated against for complaining about these practices to management.
36. Separately, Kodak established an alternative dispute resolution mechanism through discussions with Norvel Goff to address the issues raised by the African American employees who submitted complaints to Goff. Specifically, Kodak called this program the “ADR Peer Review
-11-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 12 of 44
Process” and Goff and Kodak agreed on African American employees to serve on five “Peer Review” panels (Panels A through E), who would hear the claims submitted through this process.
37. According to Kodak, the ADR Peer Review Process was created “for resolving conflict for individuals who have worked with Reverend Goff.” Kodak never publicized the process or made it available to all employees; rather, it was devised by Kodak to quietly deal with the claims of Goff’s constituents. As a result, it was available only to a subset of those who had been subjected to racial discrimination by Kodak.
38. Later, Dan Carp, the CEO of Kodak, would state openly that he would “always be eternally grateful to Rev. Goff for not having filed a lawsuit in 1997, because it would have brought the Company to its knees, because [Kodak was] so vulnerable.”
39. In fact, the ADR Peer Review Process did not effectively deal with or remedy Kodak’s illegal conduct, but instead, only served to exacerbate and perpetuate Kodak’s discriminatory policies and practices.
40. Complainants were told that a panel of their peers would hear their claims and reach a “final determination” that would be swiftly acted upon.
41. In training provided by Kodak in late 1999, panelists were told that they were empowered to recommend back pay, a wage increase, a promotion, and/or an improvement in work conditions. Kodak documents issued to the panelists indicated that the panels would issue a “final determination” after hearing a claimant’s case, and that Kodak would implement the decision. Indeed, the panels were advised that the only changes to their “final determination” that Kodak would make would be to increase the amount they awarded. Applicants were advised that the panel “listens, discusses and decides” their claim.
-12-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 13 of 44
42. In reality, however, Kodak ignored the panels’ “final determinations” and instead instituted whatever relief the Company deemed “appropriate.” Kodak simply used the panelists to lend an air of credence to the process that convinced complainants to utilize it and that ultimately allowed Kodak to obtain liability releases from claimants for little in return.
43. The panels began hearing claims in November 1999, based on forms submitted to Kodak by Norvel Goff. Such forms were captioned: “NAACP Kodak Employee Questionnaire, Class Action/Multiple Action/Consolidated Actions (Confidential - Litigation Preparation).” Class members who filled out this form were thus led to believe that they were participating in a class action. Further, the complainants were solicited to make a contribution to a “litigation fund to help cover the costs and disbursements of a class action suit [at] $300 or $500.” No information has ever been provided with respect to the disbursement of these funds. And, of course, no such suit was filed.
44. The panelists’ “final determination” was submitted to a “Corporate Sponsor” who was a senior Kodak official. The “Sponsor” then contacted the complainant directly with a settlement offer for his or her case. The offer would include a “Settlement Agreement, Waiver and Release” that, among other things, contained a provision stating:
Following a review by a peer Review Panel, Kodak has agreed to pay....
* * * In return for this payment, Claimant agrees to release Kodak from, and waive all claims or causes of action relating to Claimant’s employment or termination of Claimant’s employment, including but not limited to any claims for discrimination that may exist under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State Human Rights Law, or any other state or federal law
-13-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 14 of 44
that may apply (“claims”). In addition, Claimant agrees that he or she will not sue Kodak or any current or former employee of Kodak upon such claims or based upon facts which Claimant raised or could have raised to support such claims. In the event Claimant brings a lawsuit or commences other legal proceedings, Claimant agrees to return all payments received pursuant to this agreement. By signing this agreement, Claimant does not waive claims that arose after [his/her] hearing with the Peer Review Panel on [DATE]. 45. The panelists and the complainants did not know that the settlement offer made directly by Kodak did not in fact communicate the “final determination” of the Peer Review panels. Kodak failed to implement the “final determinations” of the panels. 46. The offers communicated by the “Corporate Sponsors,” including the language of the release, were carefully couched to lead the complainant to believe that the determination was the decision of the Peer Review panel rather than Kodak. 47. In inducing Class members to execute releases pursuant to the ADR Peer Review Process, Kodak made materially misleading representations as set forth above. 48. Subsequently, Norvel Goff and Joe Brown, the then Vice President of the Rochester Chapter of the NAACP, accepted employment and other gratuities from Kodak. Goff currently sits on Kodak’s “Diversity Board” and Brown is a Manager at the Company. 49. The entire ADR Peer Review Process represented a policy, practice or procedure that perpetuated and continued the pattern and practice of race discrimination in which Kodak engaged. 50. While Kodak engaged in the ADR Peer Review Process, the EEOC was busy conducting an extensive investigation of the Charges of Discrimination that were filed in October 1999 and thereafter. This investigation spanned almost four-and-a-half years, culminating in multiple Letters of Determination issued on February 6, 2004 and thereafter.
-14-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 15 of 44
51. The EEOC concluded: a. “weekly pay rates for white employees were consistently higher, on average,
than weekly pay rates for black employees”; b. Kodak’s “Do The Right Thing Award” was implemented in an inadequate and
inconsistent manner, and as a result, the mean pay differential between Kodak’s Caucasian and African American employees remained “statistically significant”;
c. “white employees, on average, occupy higher wage grades than black employees”; “[t]he net advantage for white employees is approximately one additional wage grade”;
d. “black employees are promoted at a rate lower than white employees”; e. the Do The Right Thing Award program did not rectify Kodak’s discriminatory conduct with respect to promotions; f. with regard to job assignments, Caucasian employees at Kodak are consistently given higher-end job assignments that allowed them to move ahead, while African American employees are given less desirable, “dirty,” more dangerous tasks; g. Kodak has maintained a work environment that is hostile to its African American employees; h. prior to 1999, Kodak had no consistent policy to address harassment complaints, that often went unanswered; i. Kodak’s ADR Peer Review Process failed to resolve the issues that were presented to it, because Kodak failed to take the appropriate remedial action recommended by the Panel, and consequently, “egregious incidents of harassment continue today”; and
-15-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 16 of 44
j. Kodak engages in and tolerates a practice of retaliation against African American employees who participate in protected activities in attempting to enforce their rights under the federal civil rights laws, including African American employees who participated as panelists in the ADR Peer Review Process.
52. Kodak employees’ compensation depends upon the wage grade to which they are assigned.
53. Within each wage grade there is a minimum, middle and maximum pay. Kodak’s compensation department determines how much compensation will be allocated to a specific department and then informs that department’s supervisor. The supervisors are then given discretion to decide how the money will be allocated between the employees of the department, i.e., how much of a raise, if any, each employee will receive. Kodak policies and practices provide for a number of factors to be employed, including an employee’s performance appraisals, attendance, training at Kodak and education. This compensation system allows excessive managerial discretion and assigns significant weight to Kodak’s unreliable and discriminatory evaluation system, leading to discrimination on the basis of race.
54. Because Class members received less money within a specific wage grade, it was possible, and often did occur, that a Caucasian employee in a lower wage grade would be paid more than a similarly situated African American employee placed in a higher wage grade. The step amounts that Kodak employees are paid within a certain wage grade are the result of subjective decision-making by Kodak supervisors and managers, which policies negatively impact Class members.
55. As confirmed by the EEOC’s investigation and determination, this system allowed
-16-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 17 of 44
Kodak to perpetuate racially discriminatory practices in compensation, wage classifications, job assignments and promotions.
56. Kodak also knowingly permitted and failed to remedy persistent acts of harassment and retaliation against Class members, that have perpetuated an ongoing hostile environment.
57. Examples of harassment perpetrated against Class members include, without limitation:
a. Class Members subjected to racial epithets by Caucasian employees and supervisors -- the following are set forth as examples, and is far from an exhaustive list:
i. racist jokes; ii. “Nigger” and many variations thereof, for example, a Class member being told that “Niggers are only good for cleaning floors and toilets”; iii. referring to African Americans and/or their children as “monkeys” or “porch monkeys”; iv. Class members being told that “Blacks shouldn’t get promoted”; v. a Class member being told that they were a “good black boy”; vi. a Class member being told that “You black people should start school earlier so white people can understand you better”; vii. a Class member being told, “What are you doing over here? Stay with your own kind”; viii. a Caucasian employee stating to other workers, “We better start to be careful on how we treat that nigger because one day he might our boss”; ix. a Caucasian supervisor asking a Class member in front of co-workers,
-17-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 18 of 44
“What are you here for from Africa?” “Do you sleep in trees?” “Do you eat monkey food?” and “How do you know English?”;
x. a Class member was barred from attending a department meeting by his Assistant Group Leader. When asked why he couldn’t attend, the Assistant Group Leader said, “I said you couldn’t go, Nigger”;
xi. a Class member told by his supervisor that he didn’t have to worry about being a supervisor because he “was too dark to be a supervisor at Kodak”;
xii. a Caucasian employee telling a Class member that “the reason blacks have sickle cell is because they lick too many food stamps”;
xiii. referring to all African Americans as “You People”; xiv. Class members being told that “You people never come up with good ideas”. b. racist graffiti on Kodak’s walls, in Kodak’s bathrooms, on Kodak’s lockers, in Kodak’s elevators and on the sides of Kodak’s delivery trucks, including, for example, “Nigger,” “Nigger lover,” “Jigaboo,” “Jungle Bunnies,” and depictions of African Americans hanging from nooses; c. Racist documents or materials distributed, for example: i. hangman’s nooses being left on the desks of Class members or on filing cabinets; ii. a photo of apes obviously meant to depict African Americans placed in a Class Member’s office mailbox; iii. a racist photo of African Americans depicted as dogs posted on
-18-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 19 of 44
Kodak’s wall; iv. a Class member finding Caucasian co-workers laughing about
documents titled, “A Good Nigger Is A Dead Nigger,” and the other one referring to African Americans as “Porch Monkeys”;
v. A Caucasian employee circulating a printed joke about, “open season on coons,” and referring to “blacks as coons and killing coons because it was hunting season”; and
vi. A Caucasian employee passing around a picture of an African American person eating watermelon.
58. Further, female Class members were frequently victims of unwelcome sexual advances made by Caucasian employees and supervisors who regularly groped, touched and fondled them, particularly in Kodak’s “Dark” areas. When these Class members complained, managers would fail to take remedial action, and often appeared amused by the wrongful conduct.
59. Whenever an issue involving unlawful conduct was raised, Class members as a matter of practice were presumed by Kodak to be the ones responsible.
60. When Class members complained about these incidents, Kodak failed to take remedial action, and instead, would criticize the complainant and scrutinize their work. Conversely, Caucasian employees or supervisors who engaged in unacceptable discriminatory conduct were given numerous opportunities to correct it, or were not disciplined at all. Further, Kodak managers and supervisors were given discretion as to whether to investigate a claim of racial discrimination. As a result, such claims were not investigated adequately and remain unresolved.
61. In 2001, an African American Human Resources Director and Senior Vice President of Kodak attempted to respond to ongoing incidents of racial harassment at Kodak. A Human
-19-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 20 of 44
Resources meeting was held to make the point that racist activity at Kodak would absolutely not be tolerated. In response, a number of long-time Caucasian employees commented, “Who the hell does she think she is?” and several Caucasian employees walked out of the meeting before its conclusion. The Kodak vice president resigned after working there less than one year.
VII. THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS 62. As alleged below, the Individual Plaintiffs have collectively suffered each of the forms of discrimination alleged herein on behalf of the Class. They have been paid less than similarly situated Caucasian employees. Among other things, this form of class-wide discrimination has reduced the pensions to which retired Class members would otherwise be entitled absent discrimination. They have received unfair performance appraisals, and been assigned lower job classifications, and lower wage grades, and have been denied opportunities for training, mentoring, promotion and advancement provided to similarly situated Caucasian employees. They have been assigned more difficult and dangerous job than their Caucasian counterparts, and they have been subjected to a continuing pattern and practice of harassment and been subjected to a ongoing racially hostile work environment. Finally, when they have complained to their supervisors and Human Resources about these practices, they have been retaliated against.
Gladys Alston 63. Ms. Alston worked for Kodak from 1979 through May 15, 2002. 64. From 1979 through 1998, Kodak assigned Ms. Alston to a number of lateral positions within the Company, during which time, her wage grade increased by several grades. However, Kodak consistently paid similarly situated Caucasian employees assigned to the same wage grade as Ms. Alston, higher salaries within that grade.
-20-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 21 of 44
65. In approximately 1998, Ms. Alston was working in the Benefits Information Department as a Benefits Information Representative, when she was informed that her position was being eliminated due to a reduction in force. However, several months later, Kodak posted job openings for five positions for Benefits Information Representatives. Ms. Alston complained to her supervisors concerning why she had been eliminated from her position under these circumstances. Kodak failed to take remedial action by providing Ms. Alston with her job back, and instead, hired five Caucasian employees to fill those positions.
66. Within a year, this scenario repeated itself when Ms. Alston was downsized from her position in the Health Imaging Department. Ms. Alston constantly met or exceeded expectations in her performance appraisals but was unable to advance within the Company. Similarly situated Caucasian employees are not treated in this fashion.
67. In approximately 2000, Kodak transferred Ms. Alston to the Human Resources Department as a Human Resources Associate (“HRA”). Ms. Alston was the only African American HRA, and suffered disparate treatment and harassment by her Caucasian co-workers. Further, because she was the only African American in the department, Ms. Alston lacked mentoring opportunities, necessary for advancement, that were available to similarly situated Caucasian employees.
68. Ms. Alston participated as a complainant in Kodak’s ADR Peer Review Process, pursuant to which, on May 14, 2001, Kodak offered her approximately $4,992 to settle her claim. When Ms. Alston told the Corporate Sponsor, Thomas Ellebie, that this was not fair, he immediately doubled the offer to $8,268. Ms. Alston refused to accept this amount as well because it was unjust and did not remedy the years of unequal pay and lack of advancement opportunity that she suffered.
-21-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 22 of 44
In response to Ms. Alston’s rejection of the offer, Mr. Ellebie told her, “you should take this money; otherwise you won’t get a dime.”
69. On October 19, 2001, Ms. Alston filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, and on May 23, 2003, she received her notice of right to sue.
Travis Curry 70. Plaintiff Travis Curry worked at Kodak from 1998-1999, and from 2000 through August 2004. 71. Mr. Curry worked as a temporary employee in a position as Primary Technical Support Specialist (later called “Customer Support Specialist”) in the Health Imaging Division from July 1998 through 1999. After a brief period of employment at another company, he returned to Kodak. 72. In 2000, Mr. Curry was hired as a full-time employee in the position of Primary Technical Support Specialist. His salary was approximately $16 per hour. Kodak paid Mr. Curry less than a similarly situated Caucasian employee hired a few months before him. 73. In approximately Spring 2002, when Mr. Curry expressed interest in selection for a Team Leader position, Kodak informed him that he would be promoted to Team Leader after he performed in the position for some time. Despite Mr. Curry performing Team Leader duties for approximately six months, Kodak selected for the position a less qualified Caucasian employee that Mr. Curry had previously trained to be a Customer Support Specialist. Unlike Mr. Curry, the Caucasian individual had no college degree and no relevant experience. Within one year, however, she was promoted from Team Leader to Manager, and was subsequently permitted to write Mr. Curry’s performance appraisals.
-22-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 23 of 44
74. Mr. Curry complained to his Caucasian managers about denial of the Team Leader position, but no remedial action was taken. Prior to Mr. Curry’s complaint, he had received outstanding performance appraisals, however, after Mr. Curry complained, his performance appraisals declined.
75. Mr. Curry was again passed over for the Team Leader position in 2004, in favor of a less qualified Caucasian employee who did not have a college degree. Mr. Curry had trained this individual for the Customer Support Specialist position.
76. Throughout the remainder of his employment, Mr. Curry applied for promotions at Kodak for which he was qualified, including a Customer Sales Support position, however, he was not selected for the positions.
77. During Mr. Curry’s employment, Kodak on numerous occasions unfairly denied Mr. Curry credit and monetary prizes for work he had successfully performed, and instead gave the credit and prizes to Caucasian employees.
78. In approximately August 2004, Mr. Curry arrived at work six minutes late and was suspended for three days without pay. Caucasian employees who arrived late were not reprimanded or disciplined with such severity.
79. Approximately one week later, Kodak terminated Mr. Curry. Courtney Davis
80. Plaintiff Courtney Davis worked at Kodak from August 7, 2000 through September 27, 2002.
81. She began her employment in the Human Resources Development Program and remained in this position until October 2001, when Kodak hired her into its Global Diversity Office,
-23-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 24 of 44
where she remained until the end of her employment. 82. Throughout her employment, Kodak paid Ms. Davis less than similarly situated
Caucasian employees. In October 2001, when she joined the Global Diversity Office, Ms. Davis complained to her supervisors concerning her salary level, and was told that the situation would be addressed in January 2002.
83. In January 2002, however, Ms. Davis’ salary review was postponed until April 9, 2002, at which time she received her performance appraisal for the prior year, and was told that she would only receive a two percent raise. Ms. Davis complained to an African American supervisor, who acknowledged that Ms. Davis was underpaid, and told Ms. Davis that racially-based pay discrepancies also existed for supervisors. No remedial action was taken.
84. In August 2002, Ms. Davis told her supervisors that she had conducted a pay analysis demonstrating that she was underpaid by between $20,000 and $30,000 per year as compared to similarly situated Caucasian employees. Again, Kodak took no remedial action.
85. Ms. Davis informed Kodak that if nothing were done, she would be forced to tender her resignation. On September 6, 2002, Ms. Davis did just that.
86. During her employment, Ms. Davis also suffered through a continuing pattern and practice of racial harassment. For example, soon after being hired, at which time Ms. Davis was 33 years old, a Caucasian employee instructed her not to speak to him until she was 40. Ms. Davis complained to her supervisor, who instead of disciplining the Caucasian employee, instructed Ms. Davis not to speak with that person.
87. Kodak also retaliated against Ms. Davis after she reported several incidents of racial harassment to her supervisors, for example, by incorporating various derogatory comments on her
-24-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 25 of 44
performance appraisal. 88. Ms. Davis filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on October 19, 2002. On
August 12, 2003, the EEOC issued her notice of right to sue. 89. On November 12, 2003, Ms. Davis filed a Complaint alleging similar allegations as
are set forth above in Davis v. Eastman Kodak Co., Civil Action No. C-03-05020 (JCS) (N.D. Cal.). On March 11, 2004, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California transferred Davis to this Court.
Cynthia Gayden 90. Plaintiff Cynthia Gayden has worked at Kodak from February 18, 1985 to the present. 91. Ms. Gayden began her employment with Kodak as a secretary on a temporary basis before obtaining a permanent position in the Information Services (“IS”) department (Wage Grade J5). In 1990, Kodak transferred Ms. Gayden to Business Support Services (“BSS”) (Wage Grade J9), and in 1992, went to the Human Resources Department (Wage Grade J9) as an Executive Secretary. 92. During this time, Ms. Gayden was denied promotions and was assigned to lesser job classifications and wage grades than similarly situated Caucasian employees with less experience, some of whom she was asked by Kodak to train. 93. In approximately 1995, Kodak transferred Ms. Gayden to the Finance Department as an Executive Secretary to David Pollock, Kodak’s Assistant Treasurer (Wage Grade K2). In subsequent years, Ms. Gayden’s performance appraisals were excellent, and she received a wage grade increase from K2 to K4 in 1996. However, this amounted to an increase of only $12.00 per week.
-25-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 26 of 44
94. In 1998, Mr. Pollock was promoted to Treasurer. Kodak’s policy or practice was for Executive Secretaries to follow the executives for whom they worked to new positions unless there was an incumbent secretary in the position, and also to receive commensurate promotions and increases in pay. Ms. Gayden learned, however, that the administrative assistant post for Mr. Pollock’s new position was being posted, and that she would not receive the position. Similarly situated Caucasian employees at Kodak were not denied promotions and increases in compensation in this fashion. Ms. Gayden complained to Human Resources, but no remedial action was taken. In fact, her supervisors told her that indeed she was qualified for the position, but would not receive it. Instead, Ms. Gayden was asked to train the Caucasian employee eventually selected for the position, who was assigned Wage Grade K8.
95. In July 2000, Ms. Gayden transferred to Kodak’s Research Laboratories as an Administrative Assistant (Wage Grade K4), and in April 2003, transferred to her current position as an Administrative Assistant in the Health Imaging Department (Wage Grade K4). In each of these position, Ms. Gayden has received less pay than her Caucasian counterparts as a result of the subjective decision-making of her supervisors.
96. Ms. Gayden did not participate in the ADR Peer Review Process because she was unaware of its existence.
Robert Gibson 97. Plaintiff Robert Gibson worked at Kodak from December 12, 1993 until December 13, 2000. 98. Mr. Gibson was hired as a two-year “supplemental” employee in the Exchange Department (Building 605) as a Shipping and Receiving Clerk (Wage Grade 5). In 1994, Kodak
-26-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 27 of 44
transferred him to a position as a Shipping Clerk (Building 601), and in 1995, transferred him again to a position as a Truck Handler in the Professional Film Dept. (Building 58). Subsequently, Mr. Gibson was assigned the position of Product Covering Operator, working in Kodak’s “Dark Room” areas.
99. Kodak did not promote Mr. Gibson from a “supplemental” employee to a permanent employee until July 1996, six months after the completion of his two-year term. During this time, similarly situated Caucasian “supplemental” employees with less seniority than Mr. Gibson, were promoted to permanent employees. Permanent employees received benefits and higher pay not available to supplemental employees. Mr. Gibson complained to his supervisor, Arturo Garza, but no remedial action was taken. Other supervisors confirmed that individual supervisors had discretion to make these kinds of employment decisions.
100. Kodak also paid Mr. Gibson a lower wage than similarly situated Caucasian employees. In fact, Mr. Gibson remained at Wage Grade 5 for the entire length of his employment, during which time, similarly situated Caucasian employees received wage grade and commensurate pay increases and lump sum bonuses.
101. On or about July 16, 2000, following a back injury suffered from a heavy lifting assignment at work, Mr. Gibson took a short-term disability leave, during which time he treated for depression and anxiety caused by Kodak’s discriminatory conduct. Mr. Gibson attempted to return to work in November 2000 with a reasonable accommodation, but Kodak informed him that there were no positions available. Similarly situated Caucasian employees were not treated in this fashion.
102. Kodak terminated Mr. Gibson on December 13, 2000 for the stated reason that his disability leave had expired.
-27-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 28 of 44
103. Mr. Gibson filed a Charge of Discrimination on July 13, 2001. The EEOC issued a “for cause” determination on February 6, 2004, and a notice of right to sue on April 30, 2004.
Jannie Nesmith 104. Plaintiff Jannie Nesmith has worked at Kodak from 1980 to the present. 105. She began her employment as a Cleaner in Building Services (Building 6) (Wage Grade 6). Subsequently, Ms. Nesmith occupied positions of Mail Deliverer/Picker in Mail Services (Building 311) (Wage Grade 6), and in the Glass Shop (Building 59) (Wage Grade 6). Several years later, Kodak assigned Ms. Nesmith the position of a Packer in the Paper Production Department (Building 9), and actually decreased her wage grade from a 6 to a 5. Ms. Nesmith remained in this wage grade for approximately the next twenty years. 106. During this time period, Kodak paid Ms. Nesmith less than similarly situated Caucasian employees, denied her opportunities for training and advancement within the Company, and assigned her “dirty jobs” that would not be assigned to Caucasian employees. At various times, Ms. Nesmith complained to her supervisors, all of whom were Caucasian, but no remedial action was taken. 107. Throughout her employment, Ms. Nesmith’s performance appraisals have met or exceeded expectations and she has even received “Perfect Attendance” gift certificates from Kodak. 108. In 2001, Kodak transferred Ms. Nesmith to a position as a Fork-lift Truck Driver in the Master Roll Department (Building 9). When Ms. Nesmith complained to her supervisor about not receiving a wage grade increase in approximately twenty years, the supervisor replied, “they screwed you. They have been screwing you for years.” The supervisor instructed Ms. Nesmith to report her complaint to another supervisor, who provided no relief.
-28-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 29 of 44
109. Ms. Nesmith then went to Human Resources and spoke to a Caucasian employee in that department, who stated coldly, “You people already got enough money from Reverend Goff to make up for the money you lost from not getting your bracket change and proper raises.” Human Resources then told Ms. Nesmith that they would investigate the situation, but never did, and her wage grade remained the same. When Ms. Nesmith complained to an African American supervisor in the diversity department, that employee told her that she feared for her own job, and that “there is not much I can do.”
110. Kodak has also subjected Ms. Nesmith to a continuous and ongoing pattern and practice of racial harassment and a hostile work environment. For example, on one occasion in 2000, a Caucasian employee harassed her by stating in a meeting attended by six co-workers and a supervisor that she smelled because “she don’t take baths,” and that “it must be the soap she uses or the hair-spray that blacks use in their hair.” Instead of disciplining this employee, the supervisor laughed in front of the entire group. This employee continued to harass and degrade Ms. Nesmith throughout 2001 and 2002, and, on one occasion, even threatened to hit her with his fist.
111. Throughout 2001, Ms. Nesmith was assigned to training in the Master Roll Department. Frequently, the Trainer referred to Ms. Nesmith as “stupid” and “dumb,” embarrassing her in front of her co-workers.
112. Despite Ms. Nesmith’s frequent complaints to supervisors concerning the above examples of racial harassment, no remedial action was taken. Instead, during a meeting in 2002 to discuss these events with a Kodak Group Leader, further racially harassing comments were made. Instead of disciplining the employees responsible for the harassment, the Group Leader just laughed. In addition, one of the Caucasian employees about whom the complaints were made threatened
-29-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 30 of 44
bodily harm to Ms. Nesmith, telling her, “I used to kill a lot of people in the army.” 113. Following this meeting, Ms. Nesmith suffered a stress-related breakdown and had to
be taken to Kodak’s medical department, and then to St. Mary’s Hospital. Noralean Pringle
114. Ms. Pringle has worked at Kodak from 1977 to the present. 115. She began her employment as a secretary and receptionist (Wage Grade J9). From 1977 to 1987, she worked at Kodak’s New York City and Dayton, New Jersey offices and was transferred to the Kodak Office in Rochester, NY, as a customer service representative in 1988. While working as a customer service representative, Ms. Pringle received her first pay raise in over ten years with the Company -- to Wage Grade K2. 116. Kodak gave Ms. Pringle the responsibilities of a Team Leader in the Customer Service Department in November 2000, but denied her an increase in pay. Ms. Pringle complained to her supervisors, and even went before a committee of supervisors to prove that she deserved a raise. Kodak, however, took no remedial action and did not increase Ms. Pringle’s salary. 117. Ms. Pringle did not receive an increase in her Wage Grade until April 2001, when it was increased from K2 to K4. However, she continued to be underpaid as compared to similarly situated Caucasian employees. 118. In March 2002, Ms. Pringle received Kodak’s Service Excellence Award -- one of the highest awards Kodak gives, but did not receive a wage grade increase. 119. During her employment, Kodak subjected Ms. Pringle to harassment and an ongoing hostile work environment, in part, by giving her unjustified poor performance appraisals to avoid having to increase her compensation. Ms. Pringle complained to Human Resources, and while they
-30-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 31 of 44
acknowledged a problem with Ms. Pringle’s supervisor, they took no remedial action. 120. Ms. Pringle participated in the ADR Peer Review Panel process. She accepted an
award she believed to be unfair because she thought it was the determination of the panel that heard her claim, and would not have participated in the process had she known that Kodak could simply disregard the panel’s determinations.
121. Kodak retaliated against Ms. Pringle after she participated in the ADR Peer Review process, by, among other things, removing her from her position and replacing her with a Caucasian employee with no experience. Ms. Pringle complained to her supervisors and through Kodak’s Resolution Support Services program, but no remedial action was taken. As a result of the discrimination and retaliation, Ms. Pringle has suffered severe stress and numerous medical problems. Like many Class members, she is also fearful of additional retaliation as a result of her participation in this suit.
Carrie Rice 122. Ms. Rice worked for Kodak from 1968 until December 1, 2003. 123. She began her employment with Kodak in the Graphic Arts Department, performing production work in the “Dark Room” (Wage Grade 5). She was transferred several times in subsequent years but did not receive a pay increase. From 1974 to 1983, she worked in the Instant Film Department (“IFD”), during which time, she received one wage grade increase -- from a 5 to a 7. Ms. Rice remained at wage grade 7 for six months, at which time, Kodak reduced her wage grade to a business support code, resulting in a pay decrease. Ms. Rice remained at this wage grade until she retired from Kodak. 124. Ms. Rice often trained less experienced Caucasian employees, who were then
-31-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 32 of 44
advanced to levels above her. Conversely, in or around 1993, Kodak transferred Ms. Rice to an entry-level position, despite her twenty-five years of experience. Ms. Rice had to complain to get her job back.
125. In 1996, Ms. Rice overheard one Caucasian supervisor tell another, “I hate that black bitch,” referring to Ms. Rice. Caucasian supervisors often tried to blame Ms. Rice for problems caused by Caucasian employees and make her a scapegoat.
126. During this time, Ms. Rice was assigned the work of a “Planner” within her department, but was given lesser job classifications and compensation.
127. In 1997, Kodak informed Ms. Rice that her position was being eliminated. Similarly situated Caucasian employees in similar positions that Ms. Rice had trained, however, did not have their jobs “eliminated”, and in fact, one of those employees replaced Ms. Rice in the job she had been performing.
128. In November 1999, Ms. Rice accepted a position as an ADR Peer Review Panelist, and remained in this position until September 4, 2001. As a panel member, Ms. Rice heard numerous complaints of discriminatory treatment and made “final determinations” concerning the resolution of those complaints. Kodak failed to follow through on those “final determinations” and failed to take genuine remedial action, including on a claim presented by Ms. Rice.
129. When Ms. Rice accepted the position as an ADR Peer Review Process panelist, Kodak informed her that she could return to her former job and that her employment was guaranteed for one year after her tenure on the panel ended. Following her tenure as a panelist, Kodak retaliated against Ms. Rice by refusing to allow her to return to work, stating that it had no job for her.
130. Ms. Rice filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on April 19, 2002. The
-32-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 33 of 44
EEOC issued a “for cause” determination on February 6, 2004, and a notice of right to sue on April 30, 2004.
Maria Scott 131. Maria Scott has worked at Kodak from 1991 to the present. 132. She began her employment as an Assembler in the Apparatus Division in Department 686/Single Use Cameras (Wage Grade 1). 133. Despite positive performance appraisals that regularly met or exceeded expectations, Kodak did not advance Ms. Scott to a higher wage grade. Similarly situated Caucasian employees in the Single Use Department with the same or less experience than Ms. Scott were classified by Kodak as Wage Grade 3. Ms. Scott and other Class members in the Single Use Department were told by supervisors that Wage Grade 1 was the highest rating possible. 134. In approximately 1992, Ms. Scott complained to Human Resources about her Caucasian supervisor who referred to all African Americans as “you people.” When the supervisor became aware of the complaint, she called Ms. Scott a “nigger.” In further retaliation, the supervisor assigned Ms. Scott “dirty” work and duties not in her job description, and changed her performance appraisal from a 7 to a 6. The 7 rating would have entitled Ms. Scott to a wage grade increase. 135. During subsequent years, Ms. Scott advised supervisors concerning Kodak’s discrimination against Class members in compensation and promotion and about the racially hostile work environment at Kodak. Supervisors labeled her an “agitator” and retaliated against her by lowering her performance appraisals. 136. On one occasion, Ms. Scott filled out an application for a promotion and gave it to her supervisor. Minutes later, Ms. Scott found the application on the floor next to a garbage can.
-33-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 34 of 44
137. Ms. Scott trained numerous similarly situated Caucasian employees who then were advanced by Kodak to higher job classifications and wage grades, but she never received the title of “Trainer” or the pay commensurate with these responsibilities.
138. In 1996, Ms. Scott took a short-term disability leave because of stress and severe depression caused by Kodak’s illegal discriminatory conduct. She returned to work at Kodak in 1997.
139. In November 1999, Ms. Scott accepted a position as an ADR Peer Review Panelist, and remained in this position until August 2001. As a panel member, Ms. Rice heard numerous complaints of discriminatory treatment and made “final determinations” concerning the resolution of those complaints. Kodak failed to follow through on those “final determinations” and failed to take genuine remedial action.
140. Following her tenure as a panelist, Kodak reneged on an earlier promise that Ms. Scott could obtain a job in the Human Resources Department. Instead, Ms. Scott returned to her previous job and since then, has been subjected to harassment and intimidation from her supervisors in retaliation for her participation as a panelist. To this day, Kodak continues to deny Ms. Scott training and promotional opportunities made available to similarly situated Caucasian employees.
141. Ms. Scott filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on August 29, 2002, and received a notice of right to sue on April 30, 2004.
Olin Singletary 142. Plaintiff Olin Singletary worked at Kodak from 1967 through January 1, 2002. 143. Mr. Singletary began his employment as a “Bottle Washer” in the Solution Preparation Department, and approximately eighteen months later, transferred to the Production
-34-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 35 of 44
Department as an Assistant Maker (Wage Grade 8). In 1972, Kodak assigned Mr. Singletary Wage Grade 10. Mr. Singletary remained at this wage grade for approximately eleven years until 1983, when he received a promotion to a Full-Maker (Wage Grade 12). Twelve years later in 1995, Mr. Singletary became a Top Maker (Wage Grade 13). He remained in this position until he became an ADR Peer Review Panelist in November 1999.
144. During his employment, Kodak consistently paid Mr. Singletary less than similarly situated Caucasian employees. Further, Mr. Singletary trained Caucasian employees with less experience who were then advanced by Kodak to higher levels within the Company.
145. Kodak often assigned Mr. Singletary “dirty” work that Caucasian employees refused to do. This included working with carcinogens and dangerous chemicals, that could and did cause serious bodily injury.
146. Kodak also subjected Mr. Singletary to racial harassment and a racially hostile work environment. Caucasian supervisors and employee frequently subjected Class members to racial slurs and racist graffiti, such as “Nigger,” “Jigaboos,” “Jungle Bunnies” and depictions of African American in nooses, written or drawn on bathrooms walls, elevator walls and delivery trucks. Mr. Singletary also witnessed a hang-man’s noose attached to a filing cabinet.
147. In November 1999, Mr. Singletary accepted a position as an ADR Peer Review Panelist, and remained in this position until August 2001. As a panel member, Mr. Singletary heard numerous complaints of discriminatory treatment and made “final determinations” concerning the resolution of those complaints. Kodak failed to follow through on those “final determinations” and failed to take genuine remedial action.
148. Following his tenure as a panelist, Kodak reneged on an earlier promise that Mr.
-35-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 36 of 44
Singletary could obtain a job in the Human Resources Department. Instead, Kodak placed Mr. Singletary in a position purportedly created for him, but he was subjected to harassment and intimidation in retaliation for his participation as a panelist.
149. Mr. Singletary subsequently learned that his position was eventually going to be terminated. Seeing no opportunity for advancement, Mr. Singletary was forced to retire.
150. Mr. Singletary filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on August 28, 2002. The EEOC issued a “for cause” determination on February 6, 2004, and a notice of right to sue on April 30, 2004.
Victor Smith 151. Plaintiff Victor Smith has worked at Kodak from September 1985 to the present. 152. Mr. Smith began his employment at Kodak as a Field Engineer (Wage Grade E1) in the Office Imaging Division. 153. In approximately 2000, Mr. Smith observed that his supervisor (Hispanic), was unfairly terminating experienced employees in order to replace them with individuals of his choosing. In order to avoid termination, Mr. Smith transferred to the position of Technical Support Engineer in the Health Imaging Department (Wage Grade 41). 154. When Mr. Smith received his performance appraisal for the 2001 year, he discovered that it contained a number of false and negative statements about him that had never been raised previously. Furthermore, Kodak had permitted Mr. Smith’s former supervisor to write his performance appraisal even though he had supervised Mr. Smith for only approximately three months. 155. When Mr. Smith complained to his new Caucasian supervisor about the negative
-36-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 37 of 44
performance appraisal, he sided with Mr. Smith’s former supervisor. Mr. Smith, therefore, complained to Human Resources, who investigated and concluded that the performance appraisal should be re-written.
156. Following Mr. Smith’s complaints about the appraisal, his relationship with his supervisors deteriorated.
157. In retaliation for his complaints, Mr. Smith was denied opportunities for promotion and advancement provided to similarly situated Caucasian employees, and was assigned more difficult work than most of his Caucasian counterparts.
158. In approximately 2001, Mr. Smith attempted to transfer to a position as Instructor in the Training Department. Mr. Smith’s Caucasian supervisor blocked the transfer, however, insisting that Mr. Smith work as a Technical Support Engineer for at least one year before he could transfer to another position. In contrast, Caucasian employees were permitted to transfer without completing one year in their positions.
159. In approximately 2002, Mr. Smith expressed to his supervisor his interest in selection for a position as MIM Advocate, which though a lateral transfer, would have brought greater responsibility and career advancement. Although Mr. Smith was more qualified for the position, a less qualified Caucasian employee was selected. In approximately 2004, this same Caucasian employee was selected to advance to a Technical Support Lead position.
160. In approximately Fall of 2004, Mr. Smith expressed his interest in promotion to a position as CR Sales Support. Although Mr. Smith was more qualified for the position, a less qualified Caucasian employee was selected.
161. Mr. Smith repeatedly had to challenge negative and inaccurate statements about him
-37-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 38 of 44
in his performance appraisals. He complained to Human Resources but no remedial action was taken.
162. In approximately August 2005, Mr. Smith was promoted to CR Sales Support, however, Kodak denied him the pay increase for the position. As a result, Mr. Smith continues to be paid less than Caucasian employees assigned to the position.
163. Furthermore, Kodak assigned Mr. Smith additional work not required of the previous Caucasian CR Sales Support, and imposed restrictions on Mr. Smith not imposed on the previous position holder, which negatively impacted Mr. Smith’s ability to do his job.
164. In effect, Kodak required Mr. Smith to perform the work of both Technical Support Engineer and CR Sales Support, without paying him for performing the work of two people, which Caucasian employees were not required to do.
165. Mr. Smith complained to his supervisor and Human Resources about the restrictions and workload, but no remedial action was taken.
Edna Williams 166. Plaintiff Edna Williams has worked at Kodak from 1974 until the present. 167. She began her employment in the Industrial Department as an Inspector of Film Decks (Wage Grade “Trainee”). In 1975, Kodak transferred Ms. Williams to a position as a Laboratory Assistant in Department 75, Quality Control Testing Services (Wage Grade 55). She was the only African American female in the department until 1994, and only one of two African Americans total. 168. In approximately 1977, Kodak converted Ms. Williams wage grade to T4 -- reflecting a change in wage grade scale but not a change in pay -- and she remained at this wage grade for
-38-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 39 of 44
approximately twenty-two years, receiving no pay increases, despite satisfactory annual performance appraisals. Similarly situated Caucasian employees during this time period were assigned higher job classifications and wage grades, received greater compensation, and were provided opportunities for promotion that were not provided to Ms. Williams.
169. In 1999, as part of Kodak’s “Do The Right Thing Award,” Ms. Williams received a $1,500/year “merit raise,” and her wage grade was increased to a T5. This constitutes an admission by Kodak that Ms. Williams had been underpaid by the Company. However, the “award” received by Ms. Williams was grossly inadequate.
170. In 2002, Kodak increased Ms. Williams’ wage grade to a T6, where it remains today. Ms. Williams is still paid less than numerous similarly situated Caucasian employees who she has trained over the years and have less experience than her. Ms. Williams has frequently complained to her supervisors, but has been provided no relief.
171. Ms. Williams has also been subjected to a continuous pattern and practice of racial harassment while employed by Kodak. Examples of recent harassment include, without limitation: 1) an unidentified person(s) placing mucus and ground orange peel on the mouthpiece and earpiece of Ms. Williams’ telephone; 2) a co-worker slicing Ms. Williams’ desk chair and inserted thumbtacks facing upward; 3) co-workers vandalizing family pictures and other items on Ms. Williams’ desk; 4) being harassed by a Caucasian supervisor after she requested a reasonable accommodation for a disability resulting from a torn right rotator cuff suffered in 2002 while at work; and 5) as recently as June 2004, the arms of her desk chair were slashed. Similarly situated Caucasian employees are not treated in this fashion. Ms. Williams complained to her supervisors about each of the events but no remedial action was taken.
-39-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 40 of 44
172. Further, Ms. Williams has witnessed and been advised that Caucasian employees often make unwanted sexual advances on female Class members, including groping them in Kodak “Dark Rooms,” often after returning to work after drinking alcohol on lunch or breaks.
XI. TOLLING OF RELEVANT STATUTES OF LIMITATION 173. By agreement, Kodak has agreed to toll the relevant statutes of limitation applicable to this Complaint, with respect to claims made under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Specifically, Kodak entered into agreements dated April 16, 2003, July 10, 2003, October 14, 2003 and April 6, 2004, tolling the relevant statutes of limitation between February 6, 2003 and June 30, 2004, for any African Americans who have worked at any of the Kodak facilities located in Rochester, New York, at any time between January 1, 1999, and the present.
COUNT I TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (By Plaintiffs Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Robert Gibson, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott and Olin Singletary) 174. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference, Paragraphs 1-173, above. 175. Plaintiffs have filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC, and have received notices of their right to sue. 176. Kodak has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class with respect to the terms and conditions of employment because of their race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 177. Kodak’s conduct has been intentional and/or has had disparate impact on Plaintiffs and the Class with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment.
-40-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 41 of 44
178. By virtue of Kodak’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured.
COUNT II THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (By All Plaintiffs) 179. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-173, above. 180. Kodak has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class by denying them the same rights as enjoyed by Caucasian employees with regard to the making, performance, modification and termination of their employment relationship with Kodak and with regard to the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of that relationship in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 181. Kodak’s conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class under the law. 182. By virtue of Kodak’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured.
COUNT III THE NEW YORK HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
15 N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq. (By Plaintiffs Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Robert Gibson, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott and Olin Singletary) 183. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-173, above. 184. Plaintiffs have filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC that were dual-filed by that agency with the New York Division of Human Rights, and have received notices of their right to sue.
-41-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 42 of 44
185. Kodak has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class by denying them the same rights as enjoyed by Caucasian employees with regard to the terms and conditions of their employment in violation of 15 N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq.
186. Kodak’s conduct has been intentional and/or has had disparate impact on Plaintiffs and the Class with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment.
187. By virtue of Kodak’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court enter an order:
1. Certifying this action as a class action, with Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and their counsel of record as Class Counsel;
2. Adjudicating and declaring that Kodak’s conduct as set forth above is in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 15 N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 et seq.;
3. Permanently enjoining and prohibiting Kodak and its officers, agents, employees and successors from continuing to engage in the practices complained of herein;
4. Permanently enjoining and requiring Kodak to adopt policies and practices that ensure the cessation of all discriminatory practices affecting the Individual Plaintiffs and the Class and requiring the institution of such measures as to ensure that these practices do not reemerge;
5. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class such equitable remedies, including, without
-42-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 43 of 44

limitation, back pay and front pay, necessary to provide the Individual Plaintiffs and the Class with

full relief from the discrimination they have suffered;

6. Awarding the Individual Plaintiffs and the Class compensatory damages

justified under the circumstances;

7. Awarding the Individual Plaintiffs and the Class punitive damages justified

under the circumstances;

8. Awarding attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs associated with this

action to Plaintiffs’ Counsel;

9. Retaining jurisdiction to ensure that Kodak fully complies with the equitable

relief ordered; and

10. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further legal and equitable

relief as may be appropriate in the interest of justice.

March 1, 2006

/s/ Judith A. Biltekoff JUDITH A. BILTEKOFF BROWN & KELLY, L.L.P. 1500 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Tel: (716) 854-2620 Fax: (716) 854-0082

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. STEPHEN A. WHINSTON WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, III SHANON J. CARSON SELIM ABLO 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-3053

-43-

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 106 Filed 03/01/06 Page 44 of 44
GARWIN, GERSTEIN & FISHER, L.L.P. BRUCE E. GERSTEIN BRETT H. CEBULASH ADAM STEINFELD 1501 Broadway, Suite 1416 New York, New York 10036 Tel: (212) 398-0055 Fax: (212) 764-6620 THE CHAVERS LAW FIRM, P.C. CLAYBORNE E. CHAVERS 1776 Eye Street, N.W. 9th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 756-4820 Fax: (202) 756-1301 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-44-

 
 Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 352 Filed 10/01/10 Page 1 of 3
~\"'(E.D STATES DiS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
I DAVIS, el al., individually and on behalf of all

"

F/{·'2D ".o?"OJ-

;, Ocr
,-_«:-", 0 1 2010

e 0c~.

("<.<'0'~"1"?.;"I\iJD. //"iJ" NfER. CL£"+-

S IR/CT OF N'i

others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

I Civil Action No. 6:04-CV-06098-CJS(F)

- vs-
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT CLARIFYING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

ALSTON, el aI., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 07-CV-6S12

- vs-
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant.

IORDER AND JUDGMENT CLARIFYING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2010, following a conference with counsel for the parties concerning the finality of the Court' s September 3, 2010 Decision and Order approving the settlement in the above-captioned matters and the effective date for implementing the settlement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
I. The Court's Decision and Order dated September 3, 2010 was intended to be a final judgment and final decision on the merits of the settlement in these matters and addressed all issues relating to the approval of the settlement. The only issue not yet ruled upon by the Court is Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion for Approval of Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, filed on August 19, 2009 (the "Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs").
2. The Court's resolution of the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is a collateral matter to the Court's assessment of the merits of the settlement and the finality of the Court's

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 352 Filed 10/01/10 Page 2 of 3
determination about the settlement, in part because any decision concerning the amount of attorneys' fees and costs will not affect the total amount of funds available for distribution to the Class members, which amounts have already been approved by the Court. The Court will retain ancillary jurisdiction to decide the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
3. For clarification, and in order to trigger relevant dates in the Settlement Agreement, it is hereby ordered that on the merits of the settlement, there is nothing further for the Court to do in the above-captioned matters. The Court's September 3, 2010 Decision and Order approving the settlement is a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), dismissing these matters with prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to enter such judgment forthwith. For the reasons set forth herein, it is expressly determined by this Court that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of this judgment until fmal determination of the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
4. The date of this order shall be the Final Approval Date as that term is used in the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement, within five business days of the date of this order, Kodak shall wire to the Claims Administrator the monies constituting the Settlement Fund, except the portion allocated for attorneys' fees and costs as set forth in paragraph 3.1 (f) of the Settlement Agreement.
5. The Effective Date for all purposes in the Settlement Agreement, except relating to the payment of attorneys' fees and costs, shall be calculated pursuant to the terms of paragraph 1.13 of the Settlement Agreement using the date of this Final Approval Order without regard to the date the Court reaches a decision on the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
6. The Effective Date for purposes of the payment of attorneys' fees and costs shall be calculated pursuant to the terms of paragraph 1.13 of the Settlement Agreement using the date
2

Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 352 Filed 10/01/10 Page 3 of 3 the Court reaches a decision on that collateral matter and Kodak shall have no obligation to provide those funds to the Claims Administrator for distribution to Plaintiffs' Counsel until after the Court issues a decision on the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
7. Counsel for the parties shall inform the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the settlement has been finally approved and any pending appeal relating to these matters should be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 1st day of October, 2010. W. r lJLLJ'IVU",I'
"'HOr'C'r. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3

 
 Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 1 of 45
APPEAL, CLOSED_2010, CONSENT, JWF
U.S. DISTRICT COURT U.S. District Court, Western District of New York (Rochester)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:04−cv−06098−JWF

Davis v. Eastman Kodak Co. Assigned to: Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman Demand: $500,000 Cause: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff
Courtney Davis

Date Filed: 03/11/2004 Date Terminated: 10/04/2010 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Andrew E. Aubertine Aubertine Law Firm 1211 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (503) 21−4570 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce E. Gerstein Garwin, Gerstein &Fisher, LLP 1501 Broadway Room 1416 New York, NY 10036 212−398−0055 Fax: 212−764−6620 Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayborne E. Chavers Joseph Greenwald &Laake 6404 Ivy Lane Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 240−553−1223 Fax: 240−553−1739 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ephraim R. Gerstein Garwin Gerstein &Fisher LLP 1501 Broadway Suite 1416 New York, NY 10036 (212) 398−0055 Fax: 212−764−6620 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judith Ann Biltekoff Brown &Kelly, LLP 1500 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 716−854−2620, x 107 Fax: 716−854−0082 Email: jbiltekoff@brownkelly.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 2 of 45
Jules L. Smith Blitman &King The Powers Building 16 West Main Street Suite 207 Rochester, NY 14614 585 232−5600 Fax: 585−232−7738 Email: jlsmith@bklawyers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanon J. Carson Berger &Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 875−4656 Fax: (215) 875−4604 Email: scarson@bm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William T. Coleman , III Berger &Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−875−3074 Fax: 215−875−5707 Email: wcoleman@bm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jan Bartelli Garwin, Gerstein &Fisher, LLP 1501 Broadway Room 1416 New York, NY 10036 212−398−0055 Fax: 212−764−6620 Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com TERMINATED: 06/30/2009
Rebecca M. Hamburg Berger &Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 875−3064 Fax: 215−875−4604 Email: rhamburg@bm.net TERMINATED: 03/07/2008
Selim Ablo Berger &Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−875−3075 Fax: 215−875−4604 Email: sablo@bm.net TERMINATED: 03/07/2008
Stephen A. Whinston Berger &Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−875−3097

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 3 of 45

Fax: 215−875−4604 Email: swhinston@bm.net TERMINATED: 05/05/2008

William G. Bauer Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP 700 Crossroads Building Two State Street Rochester, NY 14614 (585) 987−2800 Fax: (585) 987−2911 Email: wbauer@woodsoviatt.com TERMINATED: 12/27/2004

Plaintiff Employees Committed for Justice

represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanon J. Carson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Coleman , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009

Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 4 of 45

Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008

William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004

Plaintiff
Gladys Alston TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett Cebulash , Esq. Garwin, Gerstein &Fisher, LLP 1501 Broadway Room 1416 New York, NY 10036 212−398−0055 Fax: 212−764−6620 Email: bcebulash@garwingerstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanon J. Carson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Coleman , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 5 of 45

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam Mitchell Steinfeld Garwin, Gerstein &Fisher, LLP 1501 Broadway Room 1416 New York, NY 10036 212−398−0055 Fax: 212−764−6620 Email: asteinfeld@garwingerstein.com TERMINATED: 06/30/2009

Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009

Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008

William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004

Plaintiff Cynthia Gayden

represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 6 of 45

Plaintiff Robert Gibson

Shanon J. Carson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William T. Coleman , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009
Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008
Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008
Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008
William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004
represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 7 of 45

Shanon J. Carson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Coleman , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009

Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008

William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004

Plaintiff Jannie Nesmith

represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanon J. Carson

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 8 of 45

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Coleman , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009

Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008

William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004

Plaintiff Noralean Pringle

represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanon J. Carson (See above for address)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 9 of 45

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Coleman , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009

Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008

William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004

Plaintiff
Carrie Rice TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanon J. Carson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 10 of 45

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Coleman , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009

Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008

William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004

Plaintiff Maria Scott

represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanon J. Carson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 11 of 45

Plaintiff
Olin Singletary TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

William T. Coleman , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009
Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008
Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008
Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008
William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004
represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanon J. Carson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 12 of 45

William T. Coleman , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009

Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008

Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008

William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004

Plaintiff
Edna Williams on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Andrew E. Aubertine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce E. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayborne E. Chavers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ephraim R. Gerstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith Ann Biltekoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanon J. Carson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Coleman , III

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 13 of 45
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jan Bartelli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2009
Rebecca M. Hamburg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008
Selim Ablo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2008
Stephen A. Whinston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2008
William G. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2004

V. Defendant Eastman Kodak Co.

represented by Judith E. Harris Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Mark Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)963−5028 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Burkhardt Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103−2921 215−963−5130 Fax: 215−963−5001 Email: mburkhardt@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Puma Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 101 Park Avenue 37th Floor New York, NY 10178−0060 212−309−6964 Fax: 212−309−6001 Email: mpuma@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Thomas Nixon Peabody LLP Two Embarcadero Center 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 984−8200 Fax: 415−984−8300 Email: mthomas@nixonpeabody.com

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 14 of 45
LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert B. Calihan Nixon Peabody LLP Clinton Square P.O. Box 31051 Rochester, NY 14603 (585) 263−1475 Fax: 585−263−1600 Email: rcalihan@calihanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eugene D. Ulterino Nixon Peabody LLP Clinton Square P.O. Box 31051 Rochester, NY 14603 (585) 263−1000 Fax: 866−947−0803 Email: eulterino@nixonpeabody.com TERMINATED: 02/17/2006
Jill K. Schultz Piper Schultz LLP The Powers Building, Suite 730 16 W. Main Street Rochester, NY 14614 585−278−1882 Fax: 866−572−0422 Email: jschultz@piperschultz.com TERMINATED: 06/06/2006
Lori J. Stone Nixon Peabody LLP 1100 Clinton Square Rochester, NY 14603−1051 585−263−1000 Fax: 877−947−1144 Email: lstone@nixonpeabody.com TERMINATED: 03/07/2005
Stephen J. Jones Nixon Peabody LLP Clinton Square P.O. Box 31051 Rochester, NY 14603 585−263−1386 Fax: 866−947−1372 Email: sjones@nixonpeabody.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/10/2004

# Docket Text
16 Case transferred in from District of Northern California (San Francisco); Case Number 3:03−cv−05020. Original file with documents numbered 1−15, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received., filed by Courtney Davis. (Attachments: # 1 NDC Document #1 (Complaint)# 2 NDC Document #2# 3 NDC Document #3# 4 NDC Document #4# 5 NDC Document #5# 6 NDC Document #6# 7 NDC Document #7# 8 Summons Issued# 9 NDC Document #8# 10 NDC Document #9# 11 NDC Document #10# 12 NDC Document #11# 13 NDC Document #12# 14 NDC Document #13# 15 NDC Document #14# 16 NDC Document #15)(BJB, ) (Entered: 03/11/2004)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 15 of 45

03/16/2004 03/22/2004 03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/29/2004 04/02/2004 04/08/2004 04/08/2004 04/09/2004 04/13/2004
04/27/2004 04/27/2004 05/21/2004 05/26/2004 06/03/2004 07/14/2004 07/30/2004 07/30/2004 08/30/2004
08/31/2004

17 Kodak's ANSWER to Complaint with Certificate of Service by Eastman Kodak Co..(Stone, Lori) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
18 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman for all pre−trial matters. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 3/22/04. (KAR, ) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
NOTICE OF RULE 16 CONFERENCE. Notice with attachments mailed via US Mail to parties. Conference set to 4/27/04 at 11:30 a.m. (RO) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Scheduling Conference set for 4/27/2004 at 11:30 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (RO) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
19 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Courtney Davis. (BJB, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
NOTICE re 19 pl. MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed 3/29/04. There will be no appearances on this motion. This motion will be deemeded submitted on the papers on 4/13/04. (LMD, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
20 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Stone, Lori) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
21 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
E−Filing Error Corrected: Docket No.21 correct to reflect it is a consent RE: 21 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
22 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 4/13/2004 re 19 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Courtney Davis. Motion submitted w/out argument. No appearances. (RO) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Scheduling Conference held on 4/27/2004. Order issued. (RO) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
24 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 10/29/2004. Join Parties/Amend Pleadings due by 5/21/2004. Motions due by 12/17/2004. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 4/27/2004. (RO) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
25 MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Answer to Complaint by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Answer# 2 Affidavit Eugene Ulterino)(Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Status Conference held on 5/26/2004. (RO) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
27 STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time to file an amended answer. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 6/3/04. (BJB, ) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
28 STIPULATION AND ORDER Join Parties/Amend Pleadings due by 8/27/2004.. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 7/13/04. (BJB, ) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
29 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Eastman Kodak Co., filed by Courtney Davis.(Bauer, William) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Courtney Davis re 29 Amended Complaint (Bauer, William) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Joseph Leverone in support of motion to disqualify# 3 Exhibit A−B to Leverone Declaration# 4 Affidavit Declaration of Dale Skivington# 5 Exhibit A−D to Skivington Declaration# 6 Affidavit Declaration of Eugene D. Ulterino# 7 Exhibit A−D to Ulterino Declaration# 8 Affidavit Declaration of Lisa M. Wainwright)(Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP (Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered:

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 16 of 45

09/03/2004 09/09/2004 09/16/2004 09/28/2004 09/28/2004 09/30/2004 09/30/2004
09/30/2004
09/30/2004
09/30/2004

08/31/2004)
33 MOTION to Dismiss by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support In Support of Motion to Dismiss# 2 Appendix Table of Authorities# 3 Affidavit Eugene D. Ulterino# 4 Exhibit Exhibits to Affidavit of E. Ulterino# 5 Affidavit R. Metras# 6 Exhibit Exhibits to Metras Affidavit)(Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP: Responses due by 9/30/2004. Replies due by 10/12/2004. Motion Hearing set for 10/22/2004 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD, ) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
34 MOTION SCHEDULING ORDER re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP filed by Eastman Kodak Co., 33 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eastman Kodak Co. ORDERED, that the motion to dismiss [#33] will be held in abeyance until the motion to disqualify counsel [#31] is decided at which time the Court will issue a separate motion scheduling order.Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 9/16/04. (KAR, ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
35 NOTICE by Eastman Kodak Co. of Removal of Counsel (Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
36 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Eastman Kodak Co.. Amendment to 35 Notice (Other) Refiled with attorney signature. (Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
37 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP as local counsel filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (O'Brien, Donald) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
38 DECLARATION signed by Robert D. Hooks re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams with Exhibits A through F filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (O'Brien, Donald) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
39 DECLARATION signed by W. Stephen Tierney re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams with Exhibits A through C filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (O'Brien, Donald) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
40 DECLARATION signed by Andrew J. Ryan re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams with Exhibit A filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (O'Brien, Donald) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
41 DECLARATION signed by William P. Smith, Jr. re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams with Exhibit A filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (O'Brien, Donald) (Entered: 09/30/2004)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 17 of 45

09/30/2004
09/30/2004
10/01/2004
10/12/2004 10/13/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 12/22/2004 12/27/2004 01/27/2005 02/01/2005 02/02/2005 02/03/2005

42 DECLARATION signed by William G. Bauer re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (O'Brien, Donald) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
43 DECLARATION signed by Donald W. O'Brien, Jr. re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams with Exhibit A filed by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (O'Brien, Donald) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gladys Alston, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams re 37 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 43 Declaration,,, 38 Declaration,,, 39 Declaration,,, 40 Declaration,,, 41 Declaration,,, 42 Declaration,, (O'Brien, Donald) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
45 RESPONSE in Support re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Reply Declaration of E. Ulterino# 2 Affidavit Reply Declaration of B. O'Connor# 3 Affidavit Reply Declaration of D. Skivington# 4 Affidavit Reply Declaration of J. Leverone)(Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 45 Response in Support of Motion, (Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
47 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 10/22/2004 re 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP filed by Eastman Kodak Co., Motion argued. Court reserves decision. (digital recording.) (LMD, ) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
Motions Taken Under Advisement: 31 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP (LMD, ) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
48 ORDER Scheduling Conference set for 2/3/2005 at 09:30 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 12/22/2004. (RO) (Entered: 12/22/2004)
49 ORDER granting 31 Motion to Disqualify Counsel. . Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 12/27/04. (BJB, ) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
50 MOTION SCHEDULING ORDER re 33 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eastman Kodak Co. Responses due by 2/25/2005. Replies due by 3/25/2005. Oral Argument set for 4/14/2005 03:00 PM before Hon. Charles J. Siragusa. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 1/25/05. (KAR, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
51 ORDER re 34 Order,, 50 Order,, Set Deadlines/Hearings. Ordered that the Court's Amended Motion Scheduling order (#50) entered on January 27, 2005, and its Motion Scheduling Order (#34) entered on September 16, 2004, are rescinded. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 2/1/05. (KAR, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 33 MOTION to Dismiss: Responses due by 2/25/2005. Replies due by 3/25/2005. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 4/14/2005 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD, ) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
52 ORDER finding as moot 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 2/3/2005. (RO) (Entered: 02/03/2005)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 18 of 45

02/03/2005 02/08/2005 02/09/2005
02/15/2005 02/17/2005
02/17/2005
02/25/2005 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 02/25/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005
03/04/2005 03/07/2005

53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Scheduling Conference held on 2/3/2005. (RO) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
NOTICE of Hearing for defendant's motion to vacate referral order is set for 2/17/05 at 4:00 p.m.(KAR, ) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
54 MOTION to Vacate the Magistrate Referral by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of E. Ulterino in Support of Motion to Vacate Magistrate Referral# 2 Exhibit A−G to E. Ulterino Affidavit in Support of Motion to Vacate Magistrate Referral# 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate Magistrate Referral# 4 Certificate of Service of Motion to Vacate Magistrate Referral)(Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
55 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/3/05 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Executype Office Services. 51 pages. (BJB, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
56 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles J. Siragusa : Appearances: William T. Coleman appears for the plaintiff. Eugene Ulterino appears for the defendant.Matter on for oral argument on defendant motion to vacate magistrate referral (54). Court will issue a written decision in 30 days.(Court Reporter Karen Winter.) (MSH, ) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
68 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 33 MOTION to Dismiss by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of William T. Coleman)(BJB, )received from Intake this date (Entered: 04/07/2005)
57 NOTICE of Appearance by Judith Ann Biltekoff on behalf of Employees Committed for Justice (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
58 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 33 MOTION to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Employees Committed for Justice. (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
59 DECLARATION re 58 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Employees Committed for Justice, Employees Committed for Justice filed by Employees Committed for Justice, Employees Committed for Justice. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
60 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Employees Committed for Justice re 58 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
61 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 58 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion TABLE OF AUTHORITIES by Employees Committed for Justice. (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
62 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Employees Committed for Justice. Amendment to 59 Declaration, Amended to add signature of local counsel. (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
63 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. to 62 Amended Document filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Exhibits (Part 2)# 2 Continuation of Exhibits (Part 3))(BJB, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
64 DECISION AND ORDER denying 54 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Charles J. Siragusa on 3/4/05. (KAR, ) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
NOTICE of RESCHEDULING of Hearing on Motion 33 MOTION to Dismiss: Motion Hearing (oral argument) RESET from 4/14/04 10:30 AM to 4/28/2005 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE CHANGED DATE AND TIME FOR ARGUMENT.(LMD, ) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 19 of 45

03/25/2005 03/25/2005 04/05/2005 04/26/2005 04/26/2005 04/27/2005
04/28/2005
04/29/2005 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 05/20/2005
09/29/2005 10/07/2005 10/07/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/17/2005
11/09/2005

65 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 58 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 59 Declaration,, 33 MOTION to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
66 ORDER of clarification. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 04cv6098. (BJB, ) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
67 STIPULATION AND ORDER of Confidentiality. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 4/4/05. (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
69 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice by Eastman Kodak Co..(Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
70 EXHIBIT A (DECLARATION signed by Judith Harris) to 69 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
71 ORDER granting 69 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Judith E. Harris, Esq. and directing the filing fee of $75 to be paid to Clerk, U.S. District Court. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 4/27/2005. (LMD, ) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
72 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 4/28/2005 re 33 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eastman Kodak Co., Court reserves decision. (Court Reporter Karen Winter.) (LMD, ) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
Pro Hac Vice Filing fee as to Judith E. Harris: $ 75.00, receipt number 67583 (BJB, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
73 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF post argument memorandum/brief in further oppositoon to defendant's motion to dismiss by Employees Committed for Justice. (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
74 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Employees Committed for Justice re 73 Memorandum/Brief (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
75 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 73 Memorandum/Brief Post−Argument Reply filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Eugene Ulterino in further support of motion to dismiss# 2 Exhibit A to Eugene Ulterino Affidavit# 3 Exhibit B to Eugene Ulterino Affidavit)(Ulterino, Eugene) (Entered: 05/20/2005)
76 ORDER denying 33 Motion to Dismiss and setting supplemental pleading deadline to 10/10/2005. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 9/29/05. (BJB, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
77 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second against Eastman Kodak Co., filed by Employees Committed for Justice.(Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
78 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Employees Committed for Justice re 77 Amended Complaint Second (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
79 (DUPLICATE)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICES RE: 80 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service (Jill K. Schultz))(Schultz, Jill) Modified on 10/17/2005 (BJB, ). (Entered: 10/14/2005)
80 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Eastman Kodak Co..(Schultz, Jill) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
E−Filing Error Corrected: CORRECTED TO REFLECT THESE ARE CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS ANSWER RE: 79 (DUPLICATE)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICES RE: 80 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service (Jill K. Schultz))(Schultz, Jill) Modified on 10/17/2005 (BJB, ). (BJB, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
81 REQUEST for Admission of Coleman to appear Pro Hac Vice by Employees Committed for Justice.(Biltekoff, Judith) Modified on 11/10/2005 (TO, ). (Entered: 11/09/2005)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 20 of 45

11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005
11/09/2005
11/14/2005 11/21/2005 11/30/2005 12/01/2005
12/01/2005

82 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Employees Committed for Justice re 81 Request for Admissions of William T. Coleman, III Pro Hac Vice (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
83 REQUEST for Admission of Carson to appear Pro Hac Vice by Employees Committed for Justice.(Biltekoff, Judith) Modified on 11/10/2005 (TO, ). (Entered: 11/09/2005)
84 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Employees Committed for Justice re 83 Request for Admissions of Shanon J. Carson Pro Hac Vice (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
85 REQUEST for Admission of Ablo to appear Pro Hac Vice by Employees Committed for Justice.(Biltekoff, Judith) Modified on 11/10/2005 (TO, ). (Entered: 11/09/2005)
86 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Employees Committed for Justice re 85 Request for Admissions of Selim Ablo Pro Hac Vice (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
87 REQUEST for Admission of Whinston to appear Pro Hac Vice by Employees Committed for Justice.(Biltekoff, Judith) Modified on 11/10/2005 (TO, ). (Entered: 11/09/2005)
88 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Employees Committed for Justice re 87 Request for Admissions of Stephen A. Whinston Pro Hac Vice (Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
TEXT MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by William Coleman, III, Shanon J. Carson, Selim Ablo and Stephen A. Whinston by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (please refer to documents #81,83, 85 and 87)(TO, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
E−Filing Error Corrected: Filed incorrectly under wrong event should be filed under MOTIONS to appear, EDITED ENTRIES to correct name of document 87 REQUEST for Admissions by Employees Committed for Justice.(Biltekoff, Judith), 81 REQUEST for Admissions by Employees Committed for Justice.(Biltekoff, Judith), 83 REQUEST for Admissions by Employees Committed for Justice.(Biltekoff, Judith), 85 REQUEST for Admissions by Employees Committed for Justice.(Biltekoff, Judith) (TO, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
NOTICE: Scheduling Conference set for 12/5/2005 at 10:00 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (RO) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
89 ORDER granting [81, 83, 85, 87] Motion (Request) for Leave to Appear for William T. Coleman, Shanon J. Carson, Selim Ablo and Stephen A. Whinston. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 11/21/2005. (RO) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
90 REQUEST for Admissions by Employees Committed for Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of chavers Pro Hac Vice# 2 Affidavit of Judith A. Biltekoff for Pro Hac Vice of Chavers# 3 Proposed Order Pro Hac Vice of Chavers# 4 Certificate of Service)(Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
E−Filing Notification: Document to be re−filed as a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 90 REQUEST for Admissions by Employees Committed for Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of chavers Pro Hac Vice# 2 Affidavit of Judith A. Biltekoff for Pro Hac Vice of Chavers# 3 Proposed Order Pro Hac Vice of Chavers# 4 Certificate of Service)(Biltekoff, Judith) (SG, ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
91 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Clayborne Chavers, Esq. by Employees Committed for Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Chavers for Pro HAc Vice# 2 Declaration of Judith A. Biltekoff for Chavers Pro Hac Vice# 3 Proposed Order for Chavers Pro HAc Vice# 4 Certificate of Service)(Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 12/01/2005)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 21 of 45

12/05/2005 12/05/2005
12/05/2005 12/13/2005 12/19/2005 12/20/2005 12/21/2005 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/23/2006 01/24/2006
01/24/2006
01/25/2006
02/03/2006 02/07/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 03/01/2006

92 ORDER granting 91 Motion for Leave to Appear for Clayborne Chavers. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 12/5/2005. (RO) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
93 ORDER Proposed Order setting forth discovery deadlines and procedures due by 12/19/2005. Replies due by 2/17/2006. Responses due by 2/17/2006. Oral Argument set for 2/24/2006 at 10:00 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 12/5/2005. (RO) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
94 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Scheduling Conference held on 12/5/2005. Scheduling order to be submitted. (digital recording.) (LMD, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
95 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Rule 16 Conference) held on December 5, 2005 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Executype Office Services. 94 Pages + 12 Index Pages. (SMO, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
96 DISCOVERY PLAN by Eastman Kodak Co..(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
98 DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER . Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 12/20/05. (BJB, ) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
97 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 96 Discovery Plan (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
99 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Motion hearing) held on April 28, 2005 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Karen J. Winter. 69 Pages + 6 Index Pages. (SMO, ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
100 DISCOVERY ORDER . Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 1/13/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
101 STIPULATION Letter regarding agreement to postpone motion practice and request for telephonic status conference by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
NOTICE: Telephone Conference set for 2/3/2006 at 09:30 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. This Court will initiate conference call with Stephen A. Whinston, Shanon J. Carson, Michael S. Burkhardt and Robert B. Calihan. (RO) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
102 DISREGARD THIS ENTRY AS IT WAS DOCKETED INTO WRONG CASE. Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Settlement Conference held on 1/24/2006. Settlement reached and placed on record. (Digital Recording.) Modified on 1/25/2006 (RO). (Entered: 01/24/2006)
E−Filing Notification: 102 DISREGARD THIS ENTRY AS IT WAS DOCKETED INTO WRONG CASE. Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Settlement Conference held on 1/24/2006. Settlement reached and placed on record. (Digital Recording.) Modified on 1/25/2006. (RO) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
103 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Conference held on 2/3/2006. (RO) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
104 NOTICE of Appearance by Jules L. Smith on behalf of all plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Smith, Jules) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
NOTICE: Telephone Status Conference set for 3/16/2006 at 02:00 PM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. This Court requests that Ms. Carson initiate the conference call. (RO) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
105 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONCERNING THE PRESERVATION OF RECORDS. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 2/21/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
106 AMENDED COMPLAINT , Third against Eastman Kodak Co., filed by Employees Committed for Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 03/01/2006)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 22 of 45

03/10/2006 03/15/2006 03/16/2006 03/17/2006
03/17/2006
03/24/2006 03/29/2006 03/31/2006 04/03/2006
04/04/2006 04/04/2006 04/05/2006 04/13/2006
04/13/2006 04/18/2006

107 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Rebecca Hamburg, Esq. by Employees Committed for Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Biltekoff, Judith) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
108 Defendant's ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
109 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Status Conference held on 3/16/2006. (RO) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
110 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoenas served on Rochester NAACP c/o Joseph Brown; Mr. Joseph Brown; Lena M. Kieliszak and Cynthia M. Kyle, filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Smith, Jules) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams re 110 Affidavit of Service, of Subpoenas served upon Rochester NAACP c/o Mr. Joseph Brown, Mr. Joseph Brown, Lena M. Kieliszak and Cynthia M. Kyle (Smith, Jules) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
112 ORDER granting 107 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Rebecca Hamburg. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 3/23/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
113 STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding non−party discovery. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 3/29/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 75.00, receipt number 68998 as to Rebecca Hamburg (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
114 MOTION for Protective Order by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Affidavit of Robert Calihan# 3 Exhibit A to D to Calihan Aff# 4 Exhibit E to I to Calihan Aff# 5 Exhibit J to L to Calihan Aff# 6 Affidavit of Greg Duncan# 7 Exhibit A to Duncan Aff# 8 Affidavit of Catherine Volk# 9 Exhibit A to Volk Aff# 10 Affidavit of Mary Frances Winters# 11 Errata A &B to Winters Aff)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
E−Filing Notification: Exhibit A to Duncan Affidavit not complete. Re−file using the "Continuation of Exhibits" event found uner "Motions and Related Filings" in "Responses and Replies" RE: 114 MOTION for Protective Order (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
115 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS by Eastman Kodak Co.. to 114 MOTION for Protective Order Exhibit A to G. Duncan affidavit filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 114 MOTION for Protective Order: Responses due by 4/21/2006. Replies due by 5/5/2006. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 5/12/2006 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Affidavit Affirmation of Steven Carling in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment# 3 Affidavit Affidavit of Rita Metras in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
117 ORDER granting defendant's request to stay the deadlines that all non−parties need to comply with subpoenas served by plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 4/13/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
NOTICE: Telephone Conference set for 4/24/2006 at 02:30 PM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. This Court will initiate conference call to David Rothenberg, William Coleman, Michael S. Burkhardt. (RO) Modified on 4/18/2006 (RO). (Entered: 04/18/2006)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 23 of 45

04/23/2006
04/24/2006 04/24/2006 04/27/2006 05/04/2006 05/05/2006 05/05/2006 05/12/2006
05/12/2006 05/15/2006
05/18/2006 05/22/2006

118 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 114 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Shanon J. Carson, Esq.# 2 Exhibit 1 to Affidavit of Shanon J. Carson, Esq.# 3 Exhibit 2 to Affidavit of Shanon J. Carson, Esq.# 4 Exhibit 3 to Affidavit of Shanon J. Carson, Esq.# 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 04/23/2006)
119 STIPULATION AND ORDER of Confidentiality. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 4/24/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
120 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Conference held on 4/24/2006. (LMD, ) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 116 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary: Responses due by 5/22/2006. Replies due by 6/5/2006. Motion Hearing (oral argument as to this motion only) set for 6/22/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman.(LMD, ) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
121 SECOND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 5/4/06. (JHF) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
122 MEMORANDUM in Support re 114 MOTION for Protective Order (Reply Memorandum) filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Robert B. Calihan)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
123 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 122 Memorandum in Support of Motion (Reply Memorandum) (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
124 ORDER finding as moot 114 Motion to quash the third party subpoenas directed to Reverend Norvel Goff, Joseph Brown, Cynthia L. Kyle, and Lena M. Kieliszak and directing counsel to draft letters advising the remaining third parties that the Court has limited their obligation under the subpoenas and directing counsel to submit primary briefs on the issue by 5/26/06 and reply briefs by 6/2/06. Plaintiff's counsel shall submit and affidavit to the Court setting forth the waiver of his clients in sufficient detail to allow the Court to act upon confidential information produced pursuant to the subpoenas. Status conference on confidentiality issues and the production of documents set to 6/9/06 at 2:00. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 5/12/06. (BJB, ) (BJB, ). Modified on 5/15/2006 (BJB, ). (Entered: 05/12/2006)
125 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 5/12/2006 re 114 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Eastman Kodak Co. Some subpoena issues were resolved. Others remain pending. Further appearance on this matter set for 6/9/06 at 2 p.m. pursuant to order issued. (Digital Recording) (RO) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
E−Filing Notification: CORRECT DOCUMENT ATTACHED RE: 124 ORDER finding as moot 114 Motion to quash the third party subpoenas directed to Reverend Norvel Goff, Joseph Brown, Cynthia L. Kyle, and Lena M. Kieliszak and directing counsel to draft letters advising the remaining third parties that the Court has limited their obligation under the subpoenas and directing counsel to submit primary briefs on the issue by 5/26/06 and reply briefs by 6/2/06. Plaintiff's counsel shall submit and affidavit to the Court setting forth the waiver of his clients in sufficient detail to allow the Court to act upon confidential information produced pursuant to the subpoenas. Status conference on confidentiality issues and the production of documents set to 6/9/06 at 2:00. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 5/12/06. (BJB, ) (BJB, ). Modified on 5/15/2006 (BJB, ). (Entered: 05/15/2006)
126 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Motion hearing) held on May 12, 2006 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Christi A. Macri. 54 pages + 9 index pages. (SMO, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
127 LETTER ORDER re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary filed by Eastman Kodak Co., Responses due by 6/7/2006. Replies due by 6/15/2006. Oral argument will remain on 6/22/2006

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 24 of 45

05/26/2006 05/26/2006
05/26/2006
05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 06/06/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006
06/08/2006
06/14/2006 06/14/2006

(10:00 a.m.). Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 5/22/2006. (LMD, ) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
128 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF Regarding Promises of Confidentiality to Kodak Employees by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
129 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF In Support Of The Production By Subpoenaed Third Parties Of Relevant, Non−Privileged Documents Alleged To Contain Confidential Information by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
130 First MOTION to Compel Discovery by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Shanon Carson In Support Of Plaintiffs' First Motion To Compel# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Memorandum in Support Of Plaintiffs' First Motion To Compel)(Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
E−Filing Notification: COUNSEL CONTACTED. DOCUMENTS TO BE RE−FILED FOR SIGNATURE PURPOSES 130 First MOTION to Compel Discovery, 129 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF In Support Of The Production By Subpoenaed Third Parties Of Relevant, Non−Privileged Documents Alleged To Contain Confidential Information (Carson, Shanon) (BJB, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
131 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Courtney Davis. Amendment to 130 First MOTION to Compel Discovery Main document amended for signature. (Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
132 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Courtney Davis. Amendment to 129 Memorandum/Brief, Document amended for signature. (Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
NOTICE: Motion Hearing set for 6/9/2006 is RESET for 6/15/2006 at 11:00 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (RO) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
133 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 129 Memorandum/Brief, filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Brian P. O'Connor)(Carling, Steven) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
134 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 128 Memorandum/Brief regarding Production By Subpoenaed Third Parties Of Relevant, Non−Privileged Documents Alleged To Contain Confidential Information filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Hamburg, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
135 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Disputed Material Facts# 2 Appendix to Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Disputed Material Facts# 3 Affidavit of Stephen A. Whinston Pursuant To Rule 56(f))(Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
136 DECLARATION signed by Stephen A. Whinston filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams Pursuant To The Court's May 12, 2006 Order. (Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
137 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 25 of 45

06/15/2006
06/15/2006 06/16/2006 06/19/2006 06/19/2006
06/20/2006 06/21/2006 06/21/2006 06/21/2006
06/21/2006

Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams for Declaration of Stephen A. Whinston Pursuant To The Court's May 12, 2006 Order (Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
138 MOTION to Strike The Affidavit Of Rita Metras, Compel Ms. Metras To Answer Deposition Questions, And For Sanctions by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion To Strike The Affidavit Of Rita Metras, Compel Ms. Metras To Answer Deposition Questions, And For Sanctions# 2 Affidavit of William T. Coleman, III Pursuant To Local Rule 37)(Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 6/15/2006 re 114 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Eastman Kodak Co., Court to issue an order (and did so) directing the subpoenaed parties to appear on a certain date with the subpoenaed documents. Oral argument to continue. (Court Reporter Karen Winter.) (LMD, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
139 ORDER RE: Non−party subpoenas. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 6/16/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
140 ORDER Defendant's Replies to summary judgment motion due by 6/20/2006. Defendnat's Responses to plaintiffs' motion to strike due by 7/7/2006. Plaintiff's Replies to their motion to strike due by 7/18/2006. Oral Argument set for 8/2/2006 at 10:00 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 6/19/2006. (RO) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
141 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Of Plaintiffs' Second Motion To Compel Discovery# 2 Affidavit Of Shanon Carson In Support Of Plaintiffs' Second Motion To Compel Discovery Pursuant To Local Rule 37)(Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
142 REPLY to Response to Motion re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Statement of Undisputed Material Facts# 2 Affidavit Affidavit of Robert Calihan and Exhibits# 3 Affidavit Affirmation of Michael Burkhardt# 4 Certificate of Service)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
143 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Motion hearing) held on June 15, 2006 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Karen J. Winter. 62 pages + 5 index pages. (SMO, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 141 Plaintiffs' Second MOTION to Compel Discovery, 130 Plaintiffs' First MOTION to Compel Discovery: Defendant's Responses due by 7/7/2006. Plaintiffs' Replies due by 7/14/2006. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 7/21/2006 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD, ) Modified on 6/21/2006 (LMD, ). (Entered: 06/21/2006)
E−Filing Notification: Slight correction made to to this notice, although the dates were not changed. The entry now reads as follows: NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 141 Plaintiffs' Second MOTION to Compel Discovery, 130 Plaintiffs' First MOTION to Compel Discovery: Defendant's Responses due by 7/7/2006. Plaintiffs' Replies due by 7/14/2006. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 7/21/2006 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD, ) Modified on 6/21/2006 (LMD, ). (LMD, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
144 DECLARATION signed by Shanon Carson re 130 First MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 26 of 45

06/22/2006 06/23/2006
06/29/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006
07/19/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006
07/24/2006

Williams filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams, Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
145 AFFIDAVIT of Robert B. Calihan by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
147 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Evidentiary Hearing held on 6/23/2006 re 114 Motion for protective order. The subpoenas to the NAACP and the Winters Group are resolved. Kalil Jamison to provide an index and Hewitt Associates to provide a summary. (Court Reporter Karen Winter.) (LMD, ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
NOTICE: Scheduling Conference set for 6/30/2006 at 10:30 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (RO) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
146 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Scheduling Conference held on 6/30/2006. (RO) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 141 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery, 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary, 138 MOTION to Strike The Affidavit Of Rita Metras, Compel Ms. Metras To Answer Deposition Questions, And For Sanctions, 130 First MOTION to Compel Discovery: Responses due by 7/24/2006. Replies due by 7/31/2006. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 8/9/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD, ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
148 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Motion hearing) held on June 23, 2006 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Karen J. Winter. 105 pages + 8 index pages. (SMO, ) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
149 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 141 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery (interrogatories) filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
150 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 138 MOTION to Strike The Affidavit Of Rita Metras, Compel Ms. Metras To Answer Deposition Questions, And For Sanctions filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Robert Calihan in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Robert Calihan Affidavit# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Robert Calihan Affidavit)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
151 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 130 First MOTION to Compel Discovery (Document Requests) filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Robert Calihan in Support of Kodak's Opposition to Plaintiffs' First Motion to Compel Discovery# 2 Affidavit Affirmation of Steven Carling in Support of Kodak's Opposition to Plaintiffs' First Motion to Compel Discovery# 3 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 4 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 5 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 6 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 7 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 8 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 9 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 10 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 11 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 12 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 13 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 14 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 15 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 16 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 17 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 18 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 19 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 20 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 21 Exhibit Exhibit to S. Carling Affirmation# 22 Affidavit Affidavit of Essie Calhoun in Support of Kodak's Opposition to Plaintiffs' First Motion to Compel# 23 Affidavit Affidavit of Karen Kelly in Support of Kodak's Opposition to Plaintiffs' First Motion to Compel# 24 Affidavit Affidavit of Ed Schramm in Support of Kodak's Opposition to Plaintiffs' First Motion to Compel# 25 Affidavit Affidavit of Marianne Walsh in Support of Kodak's Opposition to Plaintiffs' First Motion to Compel)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2006)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 27 of 45

07/24/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 07/31/2006 07/31/2006 07/31/2006
07/31/2006
07/31/2006 08/01/2006
08/01/2006
08/09/2006

SEALED EXHIBITS RECEIVED RE: 151 Document Exhibits (sealed pursuant to protective order of 4/24/06) (BJB, ) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
152 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS by Eastman Kodak Co.. to 151 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,, Exhibits to S. Carling Affirmation in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' 1st Motion to Compel Discovery filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
153 RESPONSE in Opposition re 130 First MOTION to Compel Discovery Amended Memo of Law in Opposition (Document Requests) filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
154 MOTION to Seal Document by Eastman Kodak Co.(BJB, ) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
155 ORDER granting 154 Motion to Seal Document . Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 7/31/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
156 REPLY to Response to Motion re 141 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
157 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 142 Reply to Response to Motion, PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO KODAK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Cebulash, Brett) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
158 REPLY to Response to Motion re 138 MOTION to Strike The Affidavit Of Rita Metras, Compel Ms. Metras To Answer Deposition Questions, And For Sanctions filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
159 REPLY to Response to Motion re 130 First MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
E−Filing Notification: SIGNATURE AND LOGIN/PASSWORD DO NOT MATCH. DISREGARD THIS FILING. PARTY MUST RE−FILE USING LOGIN/PASSWORD THAT MATCH THE SIGNATURE ON THE DOCUMENT. RE: 157 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 142 Reply to Response to Motion, PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO KODAK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Cebulash, Brett) (BJB, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
160 REPLY/RESPONSE to re 142 Reply to Response to Motion, PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO KODAK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Gerstein, Bruce) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
161 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 8/9/2006 re 141 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Carrie Rice,, Robert Gibson,, Courtney Davis,, Employees Committed for Justice,, Gladys Alston,, Cynthia Gayden,, Jannie Nesmith,, Noralean Pringle,, Maria Scott,, Olin Singletary,, Edna Williams,, 130 First MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Carrie Rice,, Robert Gibson,, Courtney Davis,, Employees Committed for Justice,, Gladys Alston,, Cynthia Gayden,, Jannie Nesmith,, Noralean Pringle,, Maria Scott,, Olin Singletary,, Edna Williams,, 116 MOTION for Summary

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 28 of 45

08/22/2006 08/28/2006 08/28/2006
08/28/2006
08/28/2006 08/30/2006 09/12/2006
09/12/2006 09/13/2006 09/18/2006 10/11/2006
10/16/2006 10/16/2006

Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary filed by Eastman Kodak Co.,, 138 MOTION to Strike The Affidavit Of Rita Metras, Compel Ms. Metras To Answer Deposition Questions, And For Sanctions filed by Carrie Rice,, Robert Gibson,, Courtney Davis,, Employees Committed for Justice,, Gladys Alston,, Cynthia Gayden,, Jannie Nesmith,, Noralean Pringle,, Maria Scott,, Olin Singletary,, Edna Williams, Court reserves decision. Order to be issued. (digital recording.) (LMD, ) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
162 ORDER setting supplemental briefs deadline. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 8/21/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
163 MEMORANDUM in Support re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary (SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM) filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
164 AFFIRMATION re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary filed by Eastman Kodak Co., Eastman Kodak Co. Affirmation of Steven Carling filed by Eastman Kodak Co., Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Carling Affirmation# 2 Exhibit B to Carling Affirmation)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
165 AFFIDAVIT re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary Affidavit of Judy Rolwing by Eastman Kodak Co., Eastman Kodak Co. filed by Eastman Kodak Co., Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Rolwing Affidavit# 2 Exhibit B to Rolwing Affidavit# 3 Exhibit C to Rolwing Affidavit)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
166 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 165 Affidavit,, 163 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 164 Affirmation, (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
167 SCHEDULING ORDER . Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 8/29/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
168 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Gerstein, Bruce) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
169 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS to 168 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Local Rule 56.1 Statement Of Disputed Material Facts In Opposition To Kodak's Motion For Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Gerstein, Bruce) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
170 ORDER RE: Deposition of the Winters Group, Inc. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 9/13/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
Additional briefing on the impact, if any, of Judge Larimer's decision granting partial summary judgment in Wright v. EKC and Thompson v. EKC to be filed by 10/16/2006. (RO) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
171 ORDER re 114 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Eastman Kodak Co. as to certain documents produced by a non−party in response to a subpoena. Outside counsel for Kodak is directed to review the documents being produced and to notify the court and opposing counsel no later than 10/20/06 whether any additional information should be redacted . Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 10/10/06. (TO, ) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
172 MEMORANDUM OF LAW Concerning The Applicability of Wright Et. Al. v. Eastman Kodak Company, filed by Employees Committed for Justice.(Bartelli, Jan) Modified on 10/16/2006 (BJB, ). (Entered: 10/16/2006)
E−Filing Notification: DOCKET DESCRIPTION ALTERED TO REFLECT THIS IS A MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND NOT A MOTION TO VACATE RE: 172 MEMORANDUM OF LAW Concerning The Applicability of Wright Et. Al. v.

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 29 of 45

10/16/2006 10/24/2006 11/16/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006
11/20/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006
11/21/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006
12/01/2006
12/11/2006

Eastman Kodak Company, filed by Employees Committed for Justice.(Bartelli, Jan) Modified on 10/16/2006 (BJB, ). (BJB, ) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
173 MEMORANDUM in Support re 116 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Erika Duthiers# 2 Exhibit A to Duthiers Affidavit# 3 Certificate of Service)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
174 ORDER RE: Redactions. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 10/24/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
175 SCHEDULING ORDER . Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 11/16/06. (BJB, ) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
176 MOTION for Protective Order As To Certain Federal Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions by Eastman Kodak Co..(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
177 MEMORANDUM in Support re 176 MOTION for Protective Order As To Certain Federal Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (12/20/05 Discovery Plan)# 2 Exhibit B (5/12/06 Hearing Transcript)# 3 Exhibit C (8/24/06 Federal Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice)# 4 Exhibit D (10/3/06 Notice of Deposition)# 5 Exhibit E (Relevant Portion of Plaintiffs' 7/31/06 Reply Memorandum of Law)# 6 Exhibit F (Plaintiffs' 11/13/06 Correspondence))(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
178 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 177 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,, 176 MOTION for Protective Order As To Certain Federal Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
179 Sealed Motion (Sealed pursuant to confidentiality order) (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Exhibit A thru D)(BJB, ) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
180 MOTION for Sanctions by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion For Sanctions Based On Kodak'S Improper Communication With Putative Class Members# 2 Exhibit A − Kodak Notice# 3 Exhibit B − Corrected Kodak Notice# 4 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
185 SEALED MOTION (PLEASE NOTE: This is the same sealed motion as document #179. This entry is being made for statistical purposes only.)(LMD, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
181 Sealed Document. (BJB, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
182 Sealed Document. (BJB, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence)(Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
184 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 176 MOTION for Protective Order As To Certain Federal Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
186 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 12/11/2006 re [179/185] SEALED MOTION, 176 MOTION for Protective Order As To Certain Federal Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions filed by Eastman Kodak Co., Def. motion for protective order granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' sealed motion granted and counsel given 2 weeks to unseal the motion and file a redacted version. (Court Reporter Karen Winter.) (LMD, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 30 of 45

12/13/2006
12/29/2006 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007
01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence, 180 MOTION for Sanctions: Responses due by 1/4/2007 Replies due by 1/18/2007. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 1/25/2007 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
187 LETTER ORDER granting defendant a two−week extension to unseal or file a readacted version of their motion due 1/8/2007. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 12/29/2006. (RO) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
188 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 180 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Stephen Jones# 2 Exhibit A−C to Jones Declaration)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
189 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 188 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
190 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
191 RESPONSE in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence [Factual Statement in support of Memorandum of Law of Defendant Eastman Kodak Company] filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (1/1/05 Ulterino Letter)# 2 Exhibit B (1/16/06 Burkhardt Letter)# 3 Exhibit C (2/17/06 Stipulation and Order)# 4 Exhibit D (8/25/06 Carson Letter)# 5 Exhibit E (9/22/06 Burkhardt Letter)# 6 Exhibit F (Wahl Testimony)# 7 Exhibit G (Dr. Siskin Testimony)# 8 Exhibit H (Winters Testimony)# 9 Exhibit I (3/26/99 Marianetti Letter)# 10 Exhibit J (10/27/99 Carlo Letter)# 11 Exhibit K (Scott Testimony)# 12 Exhibit L (12/4/00 Daily Labor Report)# 13 Exhibit M (11/7/01 EEOC Subpoena)# 14 Exhibit N (11/13/01 Letter to EEOC)# 15 Exhibit O (11/26/02 Chavers Letter)# 16 Exhibit P (7/29/03 Sellers Letter)# 17 Exhibit Q (3/10/03 Sellers E−mail)# 18 Exhibit R (Davis Testimony)# 19 Exhibit S (6/10/03 Sellers E−mail))(Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
192 AFFIDAVIT of Cathy Brill in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
193 AFFIDAVIT of Robert Gates in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
194 AFFIDAVIT of Jan McConnaughey in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
195 AFFIDAVIT of Dan Moore in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
196 AFFIDAVIT of Brian O'Connor in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
197 AFFIDAVIT of Michael Puma in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
198 AFFIDAVIT of Judy Toyer in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
199 AFFIDAVIT of Gary Van Graafeiland in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 31 of 45

01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/08/2007 01/11/2007
01/11/2007 01/12/2007 01/12/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007

200 AFFIDAVIT of Paul Yesawich in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 197 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 200 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 190 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 191 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,, 196 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 193 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 198 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 195 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 194 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 199 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 192 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
202 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 176 Motion for Protective Order, granting 185 Sealed Motion . Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 1/8/2007. (LMD, ) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
E−Filing Notification: THESE DOCUMENTS ARE DECLARATIONS. AS AN FYI THE DECLARATION EVENT IS FOUND UNDER "OTHER FILINGS" IN "OTHER DOCUMENTS" ON CM/ECF RE: 197 AFFIDAVIT of Michael Puma in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael), 200 AFFIDAVIT of Paul Yesawich in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael), 196 AFFIDAVIT of Brian O'Connor in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael), 193 AFFIDAVIT of Robert Gates in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael), 198 AFFIDAVIT of Judy Toyer in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael), 195 AFFIDAVIT of Dan Moore in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael), 194 AFFIDAVIT of Jan McConnaughey in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael), 199 AFFIDAVIT of Gary Van Graafeiland in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael), 192 AFFIDAVIT of Cathy Brill in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (BJB, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
203 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Motion Hearing) held on December 11, 2006 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Karen J. Winter. 67 pages + 6 index pages. (SMO, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
204 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 179 Sealed Document (unsealed pursuant to Order) to Pltf's Renewed motion to Compel Production of Certain Peer Review Process Documents by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 1 to Memorandum of Law# 2 Exhibit A Part 2 to Memorandum of Law# 3 Declaration of Peter Glennon# 4 Affidavit of Ooyama)(Calihan, Robert) Modified on 1/17/2007 to correct spelling error(BJB, ). (Entered: 01/12/2007)
205 REDACTION to 179 Sealed Document Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related to Kodak's ADR Peer Review Process (UNSEALED per Order with Redacted Exhibits) by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
206 REPLY to Response to Motion re 180 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Stephen A. Whinston# 2 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
207 REPLY to Response to Motion re 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice,

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 32 of 45

01/19/2007 01/25/2007
02/01/2007 02/01/2007
02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/02/2007

Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Response To Defendant Eastman Kodak Company's Statement Of Facts# 2 Exhibit 36 to Response to Kodak's SOF# 3 Exhibit 37 to Response to Kodak's SOF# 4 Exhibit 38 to Response to Kodak's SOF# 5 Exhibit 39 to Response to Kodak's SOF# 6 Exhibit 40 to Response to Kodak's SOF# 7 Exhibit 41 to Response to Kodak's SOF# 8 Exhibit 42 to Response to Kodak's SOF)(Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
208 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. to 207 Reply to Response to Motion,,, Corrected Exhibit 37 to Response to Kodak's Statement of Facts filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Hamburg, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
209 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 1/25/2007 re 180 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Carrie Rice,, Robert Gibson,, Courtney Davis,, Employees Committed for Justice,, Gladys Alston,, Cynthia Gayden,, Jannie Nesmith,, Noralean Pringle,, Maria Scott,, Olin Singletary,, Edna Williams,, 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Carrie Rice,, Robert Gibson,, Courtney Davis,, Employees Committed for Justice,, Gladys Alston,, Cynthia Gayden,, Jannie Nesmith,, Noralean Pringle,, Maria Scott,, Olin Singletary,, Edna Williams, Paul Yesawich called as witness. Kodak to provide the court with the current release. Plaintiff to inform the court within one week as to what documents are missing. Court reserves decision. (Court Reporter Karen Winter.) (LMD, ) Modified on 2/1/2007 (LMD, ). (Entered: 01/31/2007)
210 AFFIDAVIT re 209 Motion Hearing,,,, 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence DECLARATION OF BRUCE E. GERSTEIN, ESQ. by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Gerstein, Bruce) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
E−Filing Notification: ***THE FOLLOWING ENTRY HAS BEEN EDITED TO CORRECT THE FINAL SENTENCE WHICH WILL NOW READ: THE PLAINTIFF WILL INFORM THE COURT WITHIN ONE WEEK AS TO WHAT DOCUMENTS ARE MISSING: 209 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 1/25/2007 re 180 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Carrie Rice,, Robert Gibson,, Courtney Davis,, Employees Committed for Justice,, Gladys Alston,, Cynthia Gayden,, Jannie Nesmith,, Noralean Pringle,, Maria Scott,, Olin Singletary,, Edna Williams,, 183 MOTION for Sanctions Based On Kodak's Spoliation Of Evidence filed by Carrie Rice,, Robert Gibson,, Courtney Davis,, Employees Committed for Justice,, Gladys Alston,, Cynthia Gayden,, Jannie Nesmith,, Noralean Pringle,, Maria Scott,, Olin Singletary,, Edna Williams, Paul Yesawich called as witness. Kodak to provide the court with the current release. Plaintiff to inform the court within one week what plaintiff is missing. Court reserves decision. (Court Reporter Karen Winter.) (LMD, ) (LMD, ) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
211 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams re 210 Affidavit, (Gerstein, Bruce) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
212 ORDER denying 180 Motion for Sanctions for improperly misleading punative class members. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 2/1/07. (TO, ) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
213 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Conference w/Jan Bartelli, Bruce Gerstein, Robert Calihan and Erika Duthiers held on 2/2/2007. (RO) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 33 of 45

02/13/2007 02/16/2007 02/22/2007 03/02/2007
03/05/2007 03/21/2007 03/22/2007 03/28/2007
03/28/2007
03/29/2007

214 DECLARATION re 210 Affidavit, filed by Employees Committed for Justice Supplemental Declaration of Bruce E. Gerstein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A# 2 Exhibit Ex. B# 3 Exhibit Ex. C)(Gerstein, Bruce) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
215 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/25/2007 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Karen Winter. 119 pages +10 index. (BJB, ) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
216 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Oral Argument of Motion) held on Aguust 9, 2006 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Karen J. Winter. 110 pages + 9 index pages. (SMO, ) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
217 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Production Of Kodak's Board Of Directors Meeting Minutes by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Production Of Kodak's Board Of Directors Meeting Minutes# 2 Affidavit Declaration Of Bruce E. Gerstein In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Production Of Kodak's Board Of Directors Meeting Minutes Pursuant To Local Rule 37# 3 Exhibit A to Gerstein Declaration# 4 Exhibit B to Gerstein Declaration# 5 Exhibit C to Gerstein Declaration# 6 Exhibit D to Gerstein Declaration# 7 Certificate of Service)(Gerstein, Bruce) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
218 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 217 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Production Of Kodak's Board Of Directors Meeting Minutes: Responses due by 3/27/2007. Replies due by 4/9/2007. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 4/20/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman.(LMD, ) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
219 NOTICE by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
220 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel The Testimony Of Daniel Carp by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Compel Testimony Of Daniel Carp# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
221 MOTION for Limited Admission Of Andrew E. Aubertine PRO HAC VICE by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration Of Sponsoring Attorney In Support Of Plaintiffs' Petition For Admission Of Andrew E. Aubertine Pro Hac Vice# 2 Exhibit Declaration Of Andrew E. Aubertine In Support Of Petition For Admission Pro Hac Vice# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
222 MOTION for Limited Admission Motion For Admission Of Ephraim R. Gerstein Pro Hac Vice by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration Of Sponsoring Attorney In Support Of Plaintiffs' Petition For Admission Of Ephraim R. Gerstein Pro Hac Vice# 2 Exhibit Affidavit Of Ephraim R. Gerstein In Support Of Petition For Admission Pro Hac Vice# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 220 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel The Testimony Of Daniel Carp: Responses due by 4/6/2007. Replies due by 4/13/2007. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 4/20/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 34 of 45

03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/30/2007
04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/04/2007 04/05/2007 04/05/2007
04/05/2007 04/06/2007 04/09/2007 04/12/2007

223 ORDER granting 116 Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Claims of Alston, Rice and Singletary. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 3/29/07. (BJB, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
224 JUDGMENT in favor of defendant against Olin Singletary, Gladys Alston and Carrie Rice, Olin Singletary; Gladys Alston and Carrie Rice terminated. Signed by Clerk of Court on 3/29/07. (BJB, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
225 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 130 Motion to Compel, granting in part and denying in part 141 Motion to Compel. Kodak shall produce the additional discovery as required by this Order no later than 04/30/2007. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 3/29/07. (BJB, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
138 Motion to Strike is Denied. *See footnote 1 in 225 Order on Motion to Compel. (BJB, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
226 ORDER granting 221 Motion for Limited Admission of Andrew Aubertine, Esq., granting 222 Motion for Limited Admission of Ephraim R. Gerstein, Esq. The filing fee of $75 per admittee ($150 total) should be paid by check make payable to Clerk, US District Court and mailed or taken forthwith to the Clerk's Office. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 3/29/2007. (LMD, ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
NOTICE: Telephone Conference set for 4/4/2007 at 03:30 PM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. This Court will initiate the conference call to Bruce Gerstein, Jan Bartelli, Shannon Carson and Mike Burkhardt. (RO) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee received as to Ephraim R. Gerstein: $ 75.00, receipt number 000593 (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee received as to Andrew E. Aubertine: $ 75.00, receipt number 000591 (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
227 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Conference w/Bruce Gerstein, Jan Bartelli, Shanon Carson and Michael Burkhardt held on 4/4/2007. (RO) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
228 MOTION to Compel Authorizations For The Release Of Medical Records by Eastman Kodak Co..(Puma, Michael) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
229 MEMORANDUM in Support re 228 MOTION to Compel Authorizations For The Release Of Medical Records filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P# 17 Exhibit Q)(Puma, Michael) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
230 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 228 MOTION to Compel Authorizations For The Release Of Medical Records, 229 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 228 Def. MOTION to Compel Authorizations For The Release Of Medical Records: Responses due by 4/13/2007 Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 4/20/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD, ) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
231 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Discovery DisputeTelephone Conference held on 4/9/2007. (RO) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
232 MOTION for Reconsideration re 223 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Court's Decision And Order Of March 29, 2007 Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) And, In The Alternative, For Entry Of Final Judgment Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) by Gladys Alston, Carrie Rice, Olin Singletary. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Court's Decision And Order Of March 29, 2007 Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) And, In The Alternative, For Entry Of Final Judgment Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 35 of 45

04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007
04/20/2007
05/01/2007 05/08/2007
05/08/2007
05/10/2007 05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/21/2007

Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit M# 15 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
233 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 228 MOTION to Compel Authorizations For The Release Of Medical Records filed by Courtney Davis, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
234 ORDER re 232 MOTION for Reconsideration: Defendant's opposition papers due by 5/4/07. Plaintiff's Reply due by 5/16/2007. The Court will advise counsel whether oral argument is necessary. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 4/13/07. (JHF) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
235 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Discovery Dispute Telephone Conference held on 4/16/2007. (RO) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
236 ORDER re 232 MOTION for Reconsideration re 223 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Court's Decision And Order Of March 29, 2007 Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) And, In The Alternative, For Entry Of Final Judgment P filed by Carrie Rice,, Gladys Alston,, Olin Singletary, Responses due by 5/1/2007 Replies due by 5/8/2007.. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 4/16/07. (BJB, ) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
237 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motion Hearing held on 4/20/2007 re 228 MOTION to Compel Authorizations For The Release Of Medical Records filed by Eastman Kodak Co., Motion denied. (Plaintiff's motion to compel board of directors meeting minutes filed 3/2/07 217 and Plaintiff's motion to compel testimony filed 3/22/07 220 settled without oral argument. The court is awaiting a letter from plaintiffs confirming this fact.) (digital recording.) (LMD, ) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
238 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 232 MOTION for Reconsideration re 223 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Court's Decision And Order Of March 29, 2007 Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) And, In The Alternative, For Entry Of Final Judgment P filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
239 CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS to 232 MOTION for Reconsideration re 223 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Court's Decision And Order Of March 29, 2007 Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) And, In The Alternative, For Entry Of Final Judgment P Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) refiled unsealed at Court request and with Kodak approval. (Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
240 REPLY to Response to Motion re 232 MOTION for Reconsideration re 223 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Court's Decision And Order Of March 29, 2007 Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) And, In The Alternative, For Entry Of Final Judgment P ursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) filed by Gladys Alston, Carrie Rice, Olin Singletary. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Motions Submitted: 232 MOTION for Reconsideration re 223 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Court's Decision And Order Of March 29, 2007 Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) And, In The Alternative, For Entry Of Final Judgment P. (LMD, ) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
241 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Motion Hearing) held on April 20, 2007 before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Court Reporter: Karen J. Winter. 26 Pages and 3 Index Pages. (Oogjen, Susan) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
242 STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 5/11/07. (BJB, ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
243 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Claims of Noralean Pringle and Maria Scott by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Thomas Ellebie, Jr.# 2 Exhibit A−H to Ellebie Affidavit# 3 Declaration of Robert B.

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 36 of 45

06/06/2007 06/07/2007
06/18/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007
07/11/2007 07/17/2007 07/19/2007 07/19/2007 07/19/2007

Calihan# 4 Exhibit I to Calihan Declaration# 5 Exhibit J to Calihan Declaration# 6 Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts# 7 Memorandum in Support # 8 Certificate of Service)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
244 ORDER that plaintiff's request to stay further briefing with respect to Kodak's motion for summary judgment filed on 5/21/07 until after this court has issued a decision on the pending motion is granted. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 6/6/07. (TO, ) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
245 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert B. Calihan# 2 Exhibit A−D to Calihan Declaration# 3 Exhibit E to Calihan Declaration# 4 Exhibit F−J to Calihan Declaration# 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing the Hostile Work Environment Claims of Certain Plaintiffs# 6 Rule 56.1 Statement)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
246 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Discovery DisputeTelephone Conference held on 6/18/2007. (RO) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
247 STIPULATION And Order Concerning The Length Of Class Certification Briefs Pursuant To Local Rule 7.1 by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
248 STIPULATION And Order Concerning The Length Of Class Certification Briefs Pursuant To Local Rule 7.1 by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
249 STIPULATION AND ORDER that the plaintiffs' class certification brief and EKC's opposition brief may be 50 pages, plaintiffs' reply brief may be 20 pages.. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 7/10/07. (TO) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
E−Filing Notification: *THIS DOCUMENT HAS A "SO ORDERED" LINE WHICH MAKES IT A PROPOSED ORDER. PROPOSED ORDERS DO NOT GET FILED. IF YOU WISH CHAMBERS TO ACT UPON THIS DOCUMENT, IT SHOULD BE E−MAILED TO THE JUDGE FOR SIGNATURE PURSUANT TO PAGE 9 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES RE: 247 STIPULATION And Order Concerning The Length Of Class Certification Briefs Pursuant To Local Rule 7.1 by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon), 248 STIPULATION And Order Concerning The Length Of Class Certification Briefs (TO) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
250 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Discovery Dispute Conference held on 7/11/2007. (RJO) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
251 ORDER that plaintiff's class certification motion and supporting papers shall be filed under seal. Plaintiff will serve the motion via email on 7/20/07. The clerk may officially docket the motion on 7/23/07 (see order for details). Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 7/17/07. (TO) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
252 ORDER that plaintiff's 232 MOTION for Reconsideration of the court's decision and order of 3/29/07 is denied and plaintiffs' request for entry of final judgment is granted. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 7/19/07. (TO) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
253 ORDER that the clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant EKC against Singletary, Alston and Rice under Rule 54(b).. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 7/19/07. (TO) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
254 JUDGMENT in favor of Eastman Kodak Co. against Carrie Rice, Gladys Alston, Olin Singletary. Signed by Clerk on 7/19/07. (TO) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 37 of 45

07/23/2007 07/26/2007 07/31/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 09/17/2007
09/24/2007
09/27/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/03/2007 10/10/2007
10/16/2007
10/18/2007 10/22/2007

255 SEALED MOTION by Employees Committed for Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Statement of facts) Apendixes 1−4 also go with the document(TO) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
NOTICE of MANUAL FILING by Employees Committed for Justice 4 appendixes to 255 sealed motion (TO) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 255 SEALED MOTION : Responses due by 11/20/2007 Replies due by 1/21/2008. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 2/7/2008 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
256 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Gladys Alston, Carrie Rice, Olin Singletary. Filing fee $ 455. (MMG) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 256 Notice of Appeal (MMG) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
257 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Discovery Dispute Telephone Conference held on 9/17/2007. Def. to inform this Court by 9/18/2007 as to whether or not they consent to the amended statement of facts and by 9/21/2007 parties are to inform this Court on progress of redacting sealed documents. By 9/24/2007 plaintiffs are to file a motion to quash and defendants will respond by 9/27/2007 and the Court will notify them if oral argument is necessary. (RJO) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
258 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas Directed to Class Members by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3)(Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
259 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 258 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas Directed to Class Members filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Robert Calihan with attached exhibits)(Calihan, Robert) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
260 REPLY to Response to Motion re 258 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas Directed to Class Members filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
262 LETTER ORDER granting extension of time. Responses due 10/12/07. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 10/1/07. (RE) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
261 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Conference held on 10/3/2007. (RJO) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
263 ORDER granting Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group's request to file its opposition papers initially under seal and protected from public access as to Plaintiff's Sealed Motion for class certification 255 . The Court reserves the right to alter this determination once it has has the opportunity to review the submission. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 10/10/2007. (LMD) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
264 DECISION and ORDER denying plaintiff's request for prior approval of any communication with Kodak's current and former employees. Kodak shall have until 10/31/07 to notify individuals. The Court will issue an order to unseal the documents plaintiffs submitted in support of their motion for class certification after 10/31/07. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 10/16/07. (RE) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
270 USCA Scheduling Order as to 256 Notice of Appeal filed by Gladys Alston, Carrie Rice and Olin Singletary. The index to the record on appeal shall be filed on or before 11/1/07. USCA docket number 07−3441−cv. (RE) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
265 ORDER denying 258 Motion to Quash but the scope of the discovery is limited for the reasons set forth in the order. Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 10/22/07. (LMD) Modified on 10/24/2007 (Eby, Rosemarie). (Entered: 10/23/2007)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 38 of 45

10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/24/2007 11/07/2007 11/13/2007 11/27/2007 12/11/2007 01/02/2008
01/04/2008 01/08/2008 01/11/2008 01/11/2008
01/15/2008 01/22/2008
01/24/2008
02/08/2008 03/06/2008

266 Sealed Document. (RE) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
267 Sealed Document. (RE) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
268 AFFIDAVIT of Stuart F. Klein. (RE) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
269 AFFIDAVIT of Service. (RE) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
E−Filing Notification: Modified text for signature date re: 265 ORDER denying signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 10/22/07. (RE) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
271 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Conference held on 11/7/2007. (RJO) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
272 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Conference held on 11/13/2007. (RJO) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
273 CLERKS CERTIFICATE filed and electronically sent to Court of Appeals. (DR) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
274 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Conference held on 12/11/2007. (RJO) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
275 ORDER granting plaintiffs permission to file under seal their Memorandum in Response to Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Unsealiing of certain documents submitted to the Court in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 1/2/08. (RE) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
276 Sealed Document. Manually Filed. (RE) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
NOTICE: Telephone Conference set for 1/11/2008 at 12:45 PM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. This Court will initiate the conference call to Jan Bartelli and Stuart Klein. (RJO) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
277 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan W. Feldman : Telephone Conference regarding unsealing documents held on 1/11/2008. (RJO) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re: unsealing of certain documents submitted to the Court in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 1/17/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
278 LETTER ORDER granting parties' request that certain exhibit documents may be unsealed with the redactions proposed by the Plaintiffs re 275 Order. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 1/15/08. (RE) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
279 STIPULATION and ORDER withdrawing 255 Sealed Motion without prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion and moving paper shall be re−filed no later than 4/25/08 subject to the set forth redactions(please refer to order for additional details and deadlines). Signed by Judge Jonathan W. Feldman on 1/18/08. (RE) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
280 STIPULATION AND ORDER amending dates re: 279 STIPULATION AND ORDER Plaintiff's Motion and moving paper shall be re−filed no later than 4/29/08 subject to the set forth redactions(please refer to order for additional details and deadlines). Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 1/24/08. (RE) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
281 LETTER ORDER modifying conditions re 280 Stipulation and Order. Proposed redactions due 2/15/08; Objections due 2/22/08. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 2/8/08. (RE) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
282 MOTION to Withdraw Appearance of Selim Ablo by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ablo, Selim) (Entered: 03/06/2008)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 39 of 45

03/06/2008
03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/17/2008 03/20/2008 03/21/2008 04/01/2008
04/04/2008 04/04/2008
04/07/2008 04/08/2008 04/11/2008
04/11/2008

283 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Rebecca M.Hamburg by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamburg, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
E−Filing Notification: Please note proposed orders are not filed, they should be submitted to Chambers pursuant to guidelines re: # 282 MOTION to Withdraw and # 283 MOTION to Withdraw (proposed orders attached). (RE) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
284 ORDER granting 282 Motion to Withdraw of Selim Ablo. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 3/7/08. (RE) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
285 ORDER granting 283 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Rebecca M.Hamburg. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 3/7/08. (RE) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
286 STIPULATION AND ORDER (please refer to document for detailed schedule). Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 3/17/08. (RE) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
287 MOTION to Withdraw Appearance of Stephen A. Whinston by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whinston, Stephen) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
E−Filing Notification RE: 287 MOTION to Withdraw (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)− Please note for future reference proposed orders should be submitted to Chambers pursuant to guidelines. (RE) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
288 MOTION to Compel by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 288 MOTION to Compel : Responses due by 4/25/2008 Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 5/9/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 288 MOTION to Compel : Responses due by 4/8/2008. Replies due by 4/14/2008. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 5/9/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. PLEASE DISREGARD THE FIRST NOTICE SENT OUT AS TO THIS MOTION. THE DATES IN THIS MOTION ARE THE ONES AGREED TO BY STIPULATION. (LMD) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
289 STIPULATION revising briefing schedule for motion to compel (#288) by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
E−Filing Notification: Proposed orders are to be submitted to Chambers pursuant to guidelines re: 289 STIPULATION. (RE) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
290 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 288 MOTION to Compel filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Relevant Portions of Transcript of Deposition of Bernard Siskin, Ph.D.), # 2 Exhibit B (Declaration of Bernard Siskin, Ph.D.), # 3 Exhibit C (Relevant Portions of Transcript of Deposition of William Bonnell), # 4 Exhibit D (Relevant Portions of Transcript of Deposition of Robert Berman), # 5 Exhibit E (Relevant Portions of Plaintiffs' Objections To Discovery Requests Directed To Plaintiffs' Experts), # 6 Exhibit F (Portion of Expert Report of Kathleen Lundquist, Ph.D., Regarding Information Considered In Preparing Report), # 7 Exhibit G (Portion of Expert Report of Philip Tetlock, Ph.D., Regarding Information Considered In Preparing Report))(Puma, Michael) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
291 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eastman Kodak Co. re 290 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,,, (Puma, Michael) (Entered: 04/11/2008)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 40 of 45

04/11/2008 04/14/2008 04/17/2008
05/05/2008 05/09/2008
05/15/2008 05/15/2008
05/16/2008 06/13/2008 07/24/2008 09/18/2008 09/25/2008 11/06/2008 12/05/2008

292 LETTER ORDER extending plaintiff's reply date. Replies due by 4/18/2008. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 4/11/2008. (RJO) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
293 STIPULATION AND ORDER re: 288 Motion to Compel. Defendant's opposition papers due 4/11/08; Plaintiff's replies due 4/17/08. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 4/10/08. (RE) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
294 REPLY to Response to Motion re 288 MOTION to Compel filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Bartelli, Jan) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
295 ORDER granting 287 Stephen A. Whinston's Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 5/5/08. (RE) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
298 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Motion Hearing held on 5/9/2008 re 288 MOTION to Compel filed by Edna Williams, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Employees Committed for Justice, Maria Scott, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Courtney Davis. Court reserved decision. Adj. to 5/15/2008 at 9 a.m. to read decision into record. (Please note: the 5/15/08 appearance did not occur to read the decision into the record as a written decision was filed on 5/15/2008.) (Court Reporter Karen Bush.) (LMD) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
296 DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 288 Motion to Compel as set forth in this Decision and Order. Kodak's motion for costs and attorneys' fees is denied. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 5/15/08. (RE) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
297 Transcript of Proceedings (Argument of Motion) held on 5/9/08, before Judge Feldman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Karen J. Bush, Telephone number (585) 262−4110. Transcript may be viewed at the court 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 PACER. Redaction Request due 6/5/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/16/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/13/2008. (RE) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
299 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference held on 5/16/2008. (LMD) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
300 STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER re: Motion for certification, Motion to strike, see order for deadlines. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 6/13/08. (TO) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
301 AMENDED STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER re: Motion for certification, Motion to strike, see order for deadlines. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 7/24/08. (RE) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
302 SECOND AMENDED STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER re: Motion for certification, Motion to strike, see order for deadlines. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 9/18/08. (RE) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
303 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference held on 9/25/2008 with Michael Burkdhardt and Shanon Carson. (RJO) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
304 THIRD AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER re: Motion for Certification, Motion to Strike, Motion for Trial Plan see order for deadlines. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 11/6/08. (RE) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
305 STIPULATION AND ORDER that the briefing schedule set forth in the Court's Stipulation and Order dated November 6, 2008 is extended by sixty (60) days. The parties shall notify the Court with forty−five (45) days of any need to further adjust the schedule. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 12/5/08. (RE) (Entered: 12/10/2008)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 41 of 45

01/09/2009 01/09/2009 04/27/2009 04/28/2009 04/30/2009 05/01/2009 05/12/2009 05/12/2009
05/19/2009
05/29/2009
06/02/2009 06/04/2009

306 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference w/Jan Bartelli and Robert Calihan held on 1/9/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
307 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference with Jan Bartelli, Bruce Gerstein, Shanon Carson, Robert Calihan and Michael Burkhdardt held on 1/9/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
308 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4)(Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
NOTICE: Telephone Conference with Shanon Carson, Bruce Gerstein and Michael Burkhardt set for 4/30/2009 at 10:00 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. This Court will initiate the conference call. (RJO) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
309 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference held on 4/30/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
NOTICE: Preliminary Fairness Hearing on Motion for Settlement 308 set for 5/19/2009 at 10:00 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (RJO) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
310 MEMORANDUM in Support re 308 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement filed by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Puma, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
311 MEMORANDUM in Support re 308 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Shanon Carson), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Declaration of Eric D. Green), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Declaration of Robert Gibson), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Declaration of Gladys Alston), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Declaration of Courtney Davis), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Declaration of Maria Scott), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Declaration of Jannie Nesmith))(Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
312 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Appearances: Courtney Davis w/Bruce Gerstine, Esq./pl.; Shanon Carson, Esq./pl. Jan Bartelli, Esq./pl.; Michael Burkhardt, Esq./def. and Robert Calihan, Esq./def.Preliminary Fairness Hearing held on 5/19/2009 re 308 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement filed by Edna Williams, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Employees Committed for Justice, Maria Scott, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Courtney Davis. Court reserves decision. (digital recording.) (LMD) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
314 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Appearances: Joel Cox, Jr., Barbara Searight, Lilla Logan, Sandra McKeown, Linday A. Cyrus, Abraham Cyrus, and Sandra Searight. Status Conference held on 5/29/2009. With permission from counsel, Judge Feldman informs those members of the Employees Committed for Justice present why he cannot meet with them about the case as they requested and that there are procedures that have to be followed and they will get a chance to file written objections and statements in writing but later in the process should the process move forward. (digital recording.) (LMD) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
313 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Settlement Agreement by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
315 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING the parties' Settlement Agreement re 313 Settlement Agreement. Final Fairness Hearing set for 9/15/2009 10:00 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 42 of 45

06/29/2009
08/07/2009 08/10/2009 08/13/2009 08/14/2009 08/19/2009 08/19/2009
08/28/2009
09/03/2009 09/15/2009 09/18/2009 09/23/2009
09/25/2009

6/4/09. (RE) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
316 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/19/09, before Judge Feldman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Karen J. Bush, Telephone number (585) 613−4312. Transcript may be viewed at the court 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 PACER. Redaction Request due 7/20/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/30/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/28/2009. (RE) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
NOTICE: Telephone Conference set for 8/10/2009 at 02:00 PM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. Plaintiff will initiate the conference call. (RJO) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
317 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Status Conference held on 8/10/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephone Status Conference set for 8/14/2009 10:30 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (Plaintiff will initiate the call.)(LMD) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
318 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Appearances: Shanon Carson, Esq./pl. and Michael Burkhardt, Esq./def.. Telephone Status Conference held on 8/14/2009. (LMD) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
319 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams.(Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
320 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees byCourtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Shanon Carson, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Bruce Gerstein, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Jules Smith, # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Judith Biltekoff, # 5 Affidavit Declaration to Clay Chavers)(Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
321 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Service Awards by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11)(Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Final Fairness Hearing reset from 9/15/2009 to 10/23/2009 10:00 AM in US Courthouse, 100 State Street, Rochester NY 14614 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
322 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference held on 9/15/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
323 LETTER ORDER granting continuance to 9/23/09 for parties to file motion for final approval of the settlement. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 9/18/09. (RE) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
324 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
325 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF in Support of Approval of the Settlement Class Period by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Puma, Michael) (Entered: 09/25/2009)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 43 of 45

10/13/2009 10/14/2009 10/15/2009 10/16/2009 10/20/2009 10/21/2009
10/21/2009 10/23/2009
10/30/2009 11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11/05/2009

326 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference w/Shanon Carson, Bruce Gerstein and Michael Burkhardt held on 10/13/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
327 ORDER that plaintiffs may file a redacted version of copies of all exclusions and objections that were received by the claims administrator from class members, in order to remove personal identifying information, such as home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, pay information and the like. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 10/14/09. (TO) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
328 MOTION for Protective Order by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Gerstein, Bruce) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
E−Filing Notification re: 328 MOTION for Protective Order, documents can not be accessed using "View All". Documents can be viewed individually. (RE) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
329 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference w/Shanon Carson, Bruce Gerstein, Michael Burkhardt, Mike Roemer, Clerk of the Court, Charles Salina and Jack Coad, US Deputy Marshals held on 10/20/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
330 DECLARATION signed by Shanon Carson re 324 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
331 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference w/Shanon Carson, Bruce Gerstein, Michael Burkhardt and Rob Calihan held on 10/21/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
332 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Appearances: Bruce Gerstein, Esq./pl.; Shanon Carson Esq./pl.; William T. Coleman, III, Esq./pl.; Clayborn Chavers, Esq./pl.; Michael Burkhardt, Esq./def.; Michael Puma Esq/def. Robert Calihan, Esq./def. Final Fairness Hearing begins on 10/23/2009, Final Fairness Hearing continues on 11/5/2009 10:00 AM in US Courthouse, 100 State Street, Rochester NY 14614 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (Court Reporter: Lauren Adams, Realtime Reporting) (LMD) Modified on 10/26/2009 (LMD). (Entered: 10/26/2009)
NOTICE: Telephone Conference with Bruce Gerstein, Shanon Carson, Michael Burkhardt and Robert Calihan set for 11/2/2009 at 04:30 PM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. Mr. Carson has provided the telephone number and password for this conference to all participants. (RJO) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
333 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference w/Bruce Gerstein, Shanon Carson, Michael Burkhardt and Rob Calihan held on 11/3/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Motion Hearing (oral argument) set for 12/1/2009 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (RJO) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
334 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Appearances: Bruce Gerstein, Esq./pl.; Shanon Carson, Esq./pl.; Clayborn Chavers, Esq./pl.; Michael Burkhardt, Esq./def.. Matter on for completion of final fairness hearingCompletion of final fairness hearing held on 11/5/2009. Fairness hearing completed as to the class members speaking. Court requests further information on certain issues. Attorneys fees motion schedule for argument on 12/1/2009. (Court Reporter Elsa, Realtime Reporting.) (LMD) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 44 of 45

11/16/2009 12/01/2009
12/07/2009 12/07/2009 12/23/2009 12/23/2009 01/08/2010 01/08/2010 01/08/2010

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Motion Hearing (oral argument) reset from 12/1/2009 2:00 p.m. to 12/1/2009 01:00 PM in US Courthouse, 100 State Street, Rochester NY 14614 before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. (LMD) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
337 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Appearances: Bruce Gerstein, Esq./pl.; Shanon Carson, Esq./pl.; Jules Smith, Esq/pl.; Michael Burkhardt, Esq./def. and Robert Calihan, Esq./def. Motion Hearing held on 12/1/2009 re 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Edna Williams, Jannie Nesmith, Carrie Rice, Olin Singletary, Noralean Pringle, Employees Committed for Justice, Maria Scott, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Courtney Davis. Court requests additional information. The requested supplemental information should be submitted to the Court by 12/31/2009. (digital recording.) (LMD) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
335 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/23/09, before Judge Feldman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lauren Adams, Telephone number (585) 232−8765. Transcript may be viewed at the court 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 PACER. Redaction Request due 12/28/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/7/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/8/2010. (RE) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
336 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/5/09, before Judge Feldman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lauren Adams, Telephone number (585) 232−8765. Tape Number: 11/5/09. Transcript may be viewed at the court 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 PACER. Redaction Request due 12/28/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/7/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/8/2010. (RE) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
338 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 12/1/09, before Judge Feldman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Karen Bush, Telephone number (585) 613−4312. Transcript may be viewed at the court 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 PACER. Redaction Request due 1/13/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/25/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/23/2010. (RE) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
339 LETTER ORDER extending the deadline for the additional information requested by the Court. The requested information should be submitted to the Court by 1/8/2010. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 12/23/2009. (RJO) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
340 DECLARATION signed by Patrick Solomon re 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
341 DECLARATION signed by Jules L. Smith re 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
342 DECLARATION re 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys

Case: 6:04-cv-6098 As of: 10/07/2010 12:40 PM EDT 45 of 45

01/08/2010
01/09/2010
01/11/2010 01/15/2010 05/07/2010 06/23/2010 08/06/2010 08/11/2010 08/18/2010 09/03/2010 09/03/2010 10/01/2010 10/04/2010

Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A−Bruce Gerstein CV, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B−Affidavit of Kenneth Feinberg, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C−Affidavit of Moses Silverman, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D−Time Records, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E−National Law Journal Article, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F−Travel Records)(Gerstein, Bruce) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
343 DECLARATION signed by Clayborne E. Chavers, Sr. re 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams with Exhibits 1−9 filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
344 DECLARATION signed by Shanon J. Carson re 319 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams with Exhibits 1−9 filed by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Gladys Alston, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Carrie Rice, Maria Scott, Olin Singletary, Edna Williams. (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 01/09/2010)
E−Filing Notification: No proof of service provided re: 340 DECLARATION, Shanon), 341 DECLARATION, 342 DECLARATION, 343 DECLARATION and 344 DECLARATION. (RE) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
345 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF in Further Support of Approval of the Settlement by Eastman Kodak Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Puma, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
346 NOTICE by Courtney Davis, Employees Committed for Justice, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Edna Williams Redacted Exhibits B, C and D to Declaration of Edward Sincavage − Doc. 324−3 (Carson, Shanon) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
347 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen J. Jones on behalf of Eastman Kodak Co. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Jones, Stephen) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
NOTICE: Telephone Conference with Shanon Carson and Michael Burkhardt set for 8/11/2010 at 11:00 AM before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman. This Court will initiate the conference call. (RJO) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
348 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference with Shanon Carson and Michael Burkhardt held on 8/11/2010. (RJO) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
349 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman: Telephone Conference with Shanon Carson and Michael Burkhardt held on 8/18/2010. (RJO) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
350 STIPULATION AND ORDER re: settlement agreement re: reduction of the service payments to $50,000 (see order for details). Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 9/3/2010. (TO) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
351 ORDER granting 321 Motion for Settlement; granting 324 Motion for Settlement; denying 328 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 9/3/2010. (TO) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
352 ORDER AND JUDGMENT CLARIFYING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT re: 351 Order in 6:04−cv−06098 and 27 Order in 6:07−cv−06512. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 10/1/10. (RE) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
353 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Signed by Michael J. Roemer, Clerk of Court, on 10/4/10. (RE) (Entered: 10/04/2010)