Case 2:05-cv-72583-MOB-PJK Document 1 Filed 06/29/2005 Page 1 of 7
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JUDGE : Battani, Kari~n~e O.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

DECK : S. Division C1v11 Deck

COMMISSION.

)

D~E : 06/29/2005 @ 16:24:35

)

CASE NUKBER : 2:05CV725B3

Plaintiff.

)

OIP EEOC V. THE PEPSI BOULIIiG

)

GRP (dAO

v.

)

PEPSI COLA COMPANY

)

....VIVlt"LA1N I

)

AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Defendant.

) )

MI'.GISTRATE JUDGE KOMIVES

-----------------------------)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.

to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to make whole

Joe Golson ("Golson"). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that

Defendant. Pepsi Bottling Group ("Pepsi"). violated the ADA when it subjected Golson

to qualification standards that have the effect of diSCriminating on the basis of disability.

and unlawfully discharged him from his job as a delivery driver.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§ 451. 1331. 1337. 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107 (a) of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (a). which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"),42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. as amended. 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (A).

Case 2:05-cv-72583-MOB-PJK Document 1 Filed 06/29/2005 Page 2 of 7
The employment practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful were committed in the Eastern District of Michigan.
PARTIES 3. The Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration. interpretation and enforcement of Tille I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107 (A) of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 1211 (a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) ofTille VII, 42 U.S.C. § 200035(f)(1) and (3). 4. At aU relevant times, Defendant was doing business in the State of Michigan and continuously had at least twenty (20) employees/members. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant was continuously engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101 (5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.§ 12111 (5). and Section 101 (7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Section 701 (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant was a covered entity under Section 101 (2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Golson filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant Pepsi. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2

Case 2:05-cv-72583-MOB-PJK Document 1 Filed 06/29/2005 Page 3 of 7
Beginning in October 2001, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the ADA Sections 102(a), 102 (b)(3)(A), 102(b)(6), 42 U.S.C. §§12112(a), 12112 (b)(3)(A), and 12112(b)(6). The Defendant's practices include but are not limited to, discriminating against Golson based on his disability utilizing standards that have the effect of discriminating against persons with disabilities, using qualification standards, employment tests, and other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities, and discharging Mr. Golson.
9. After the Defendant removed Golson from his driver position, it subjected him to a physical screening test for another position that screened out or tended to screen out individuals with disabilities.
10. The standards and physical test were not job related or consistent with business necessity in violation of Section 102(b)(3) and 102(b)(6).
11. Golson is a qualified individual with a disability. 12. The effect of the above-mentioned, unlawful employment practices has been to deprive Golson of equal employment opportunities because of his disability. 13. The above-mentioned, unlawful employment practices were intentional. 14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8-11 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Golson.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
3

Case 2:05-cv-72583-MOB-PJK Document 1 Filed 06/29/2005 Page 4 of 7
Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any unlawful employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability;
2. Order the Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
3. Order the Defendant Employer to provide training to its management employees regarding disability discrimination and the ADA's requirements to provide a reasonable accommodation to disabled employees;
D. Order the Defendant Employer to make whole Golson by providing him with reinstatement, appropriate lost earnings and benefits, with pre-judgement interest, in amounts to be proven at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Golson by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 8-11 above in amounts to be proven at trial;
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Golson punitive damages for the malicious or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 8-11 above, in amounts to be proven at trial;
G. Grant the Commission its costs in this action; and H. GRANT such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
4

Case 2:05-cv-72583-MOB-PJK Document 1 Filed 06/29/2005 Page 5 of 7

c,b. r!(j[
DATE' ,

Respectfully submitted,
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
ADE~PPt~F
Regional Attorney
ROBERT DAWKINS Supervisory Trial Attorney
TAMMY KLEIN Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Detroit District Office 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 226-6701

Case 2:05-cv-72583-MOB-PJK Document 1 Filed 06/29/2005 Page 6 of 7

JS 4411/99

CIVIL COVER SHEET COUNTY IN WHICH THIS ACTION AROSE: WAYNE

I. (3) PLAINTIFFS
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

DEFENDANTS THE PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP

(b) County of Residence of First Listed

County of Residence of First Listed

WAYNE

NOTl:: l~b~~~\;~~~;MNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE

(C) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Tammy Klein (P60256), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Dctroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-5673

Attomeys~J MARIAyTE O. BATlI\Nl

77rS f3 PcJI!..
.i~;:;i"'·-'~.W; 'tI;"",...

,......

r Q , S I S OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" In On. 0 .. Only)

" . oS, Government Plaintitf

0 3 Federal Quesllon
(U.S. Govemment Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF P

!""lU"1

x fot Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and Onft Ilox for Defendani}

PLA Off

PLA OEF

0 0 0 4 04 CiUzen of This Slate

I

1 Incorporoled or Principal Place

at Business In This State

o 2 U.S. Government Defendant

o 4 Oive.,;l!y (Indicate CItizenship of Parties Inl!em 1111

Cllizen of Another 0 2 02 Clt~;,n or,~,bJec1 of. 0 3 03
miMI 1 0 ntrv

Os 05 Incorporated and Principal of Business In Another Slate

Foreign Nation

06 0 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT
CONTRACT

J:place an "X" in One BoX' OnlY)
TORTS

FORFE ITURf: IPENA I.TY

RANKRUPTCY

OTHER S'l'ATOTEf>

0 D 0 0
( 0 0

11 0 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Mil«< Act 140 Negotiable Inatrumenl 150 Recovery af
Overpayment and EnfOfC1lment of Judgmen!
151 Medicare Act

~

0 152 Recovery of Oefauned
Student Loana
{ElCd. Veterans)
0 153 R~olCi¥elpayment of Veteran's Bene!lts

0 160 Stoddlolders' Suits

0 190 Other Contract

D 195 Co~ Prom.a Uabdity

PERSONAL 'NJURY
o 31 () Aiq»ane o 315 Airplane Product
Liability 0
320 Assault Libel And Slander
0 330 Fet:Uttal Em~rs'
liability
D 340 Marine 0 345 Marine Prodoct
U.""",
0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 355 Meter Vehide
Product Uab$ly
0 360 Other Personal
InjW)'

PERSONAL INJURY 0 D 362 PenicnallnJury~ 0
Mea. Malpractice 0 D 365 j;"r:oJ0unc'tl:,l,ntyil'r)Y' - 0

D 368 Asbestos Pemmal 0

Iniury Product

Uabdity

0

0

PERSONAL PROPERTY

o 370 Other Fraud o 371 Truth In lending o J80 Other Person~

0

Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage

0

Product Uability , D

REAL PROPERTY

ClVIL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

.. D 210 land Condemnation ~\v ng

0 D 51 o MOIioI'Is to Vacate

~/~?""'lngl 0 220 Foreclosure

0 0

2~3O0ToRretm..

Lean.\ to\.al'ld

~
:

(

442JEmpioyment Ac:t:OmmOda1iona

Sentence Habeas Corpus: D 530 General

0 0

o 0 245 Tort Product Liability
0 290 An: Otilof Ruf Propert)'

"'44-Welfare

0 535 Death Penalty

440 Other Civil Righi. D 540 "-l'IdarnUl &. Other

0

0 550 Civil Rights

/

0 555 Prison Condition

61Q Agriculture 620 Other Faad & Orvu 625 0Ng ReI~ld Salzlh
or Property 21: 891
630 Liquor Laws
640 RR. & Truck
650 Airline Regs. 660 OccupatioM!
SafetylHeallh 6900thM
WlOR
71 Q Fait Labor Standard,
"" 720 LaboflMgmL Relation;
730 laborMgm1. A~1Ig
&011dM~Ad.
140 Raaway Lebor Act
790 Other labor Uligalion
791 EmpI, Ret. Inc, SeaJrity Iv;t

0 422 App&a12B USC 156
0 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
D 820 Copyrights D 830 Patent D 640 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
0 001 H IA(1395ff) 0 862 Oladi Lung (923) 0 6G3 OlW:iOfNN (405(g)1 0 864 SSIO Title xvt 0 8650 RSI (40S(ojl
FEDERAL TAX SUffS
o 870 Tnes (U,S, Ph"n1ilf
Dr Defendant)
o 671 IRS·Third Party
26USC 7609

o 400 Siale ReapporUonment o 41 o Antitrust o 430 Banks and Banking o "'SO CornmercenCC o 460D~ation
o 470Rack~_lnn~& ComIpl OI\l.nlzationto
o 810 Selective Service o 850 Sew ntip.lCom mod til""
Exchange
o 875 Customer Chatlenge
12USC3-410
o 891 Agricutiural,AdS o 892 Economic. SlablUation Act o 893 EnvilWmWllai Malter.. o 6~ Ener;v Allocation Ad o 695 Freedom of
Informallon Ad
o 900 1f.!;~~I': I.JMIIr Equ.1 AGee... to JusUee
o 950 Constitutionalily of o Stale StDtutea
69001herSta!utoryAaionl

~~GIN

(PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

Ii ~' 0 Orlginal

2 Removed frem

Proceeding

Slate Coort

0 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

o -4 Reinstated or R~ned

Transferred from

05(Bpedfy) o another district

6 Mvttl district

Utlgatiofl

Appeal to
o Oistrlct 7 Judge from
MaQlaltate

"VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CIt.e the U.~. CI~ Statute und«whlch you Me rl!~ and write brief statement of cause.
Do not clle Jumdlctlonal statutes unless dlversrty.

This is un action under Title I ofthe Americans with Dis"bilitlCsActof-1990-ait Tililif.thc Civil Rights Act of 1991 10 correct unlawful

,-mnlnvmpnt nmrti("l"<: nn Ihl"' hllo;:io: nf ,HO:flnilitv

~

'\

VII. REQUESTED IN

LJ CHECK IF THls)S-ACLASSA ;nON

:;DEMAND

CHECKYES0n.'Y~f~demande,d1 complaint

COMPLAINT:

UNDER F.Rp. 23

JURY DEMA 6: IKl

0 No

(S. .
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) In'truCllons): ~

IF ANY

JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

DATE

SIGNATURE OF AlTORNEV OF RECORO

, .,.

.. . .C- ase..2:05'.-. c'-:,v"-',72583-MOB-PJK Document 1

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83.11

Filed 06/29/2005

Page 7 of 7

1.

Is this a case that has been previously dismissed?

If yes, give the following information: Court: _______________________________________

Case No.: ___________________________________ Judge: _______________________________________

2.

Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously

.',,<on"n"'" 0' .'sml.... ,omoanlon oases 'n 'h's 0' any ~8~·

other court, including s@te court? (Companion cases are

. No

matters in which it appears ~ubstanti~lIy similar evidence will

be offered or the same or related parties are present and the

cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.)

If yes, give the following information: Court: ________________________________~-----

Case No.: _____________________________________

, '

Judge: _______________________________________

Notes:

 
 UNITED STATES UlSlR!CT COURT

f

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

~Ul l IE 11 2005

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CLERK'S OFFIC

DETROIT :E

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

05-72583

*

V THE PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.
Defendant

JTIDGE M...1Hl\NNE O. BATTANL
'/.p.GISTAATE JUDGE KOMNf.~

ADELE RAPPORT (P44833) ROBERT DAWKINS (P382389) TAMMY KLEIN (P50256) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Ave., Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-5673

HUNTER R. HUGHES DANIEL D. ZEGURA Rogers & Hardin LLP 2700 International Tower, Peachtree Center 229 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-160 I (404) 522-4700
ERIC J. PELTON Kienbaum, Opperwa\I, Harding & Pelton 325 S. Old Woodward Avenue Birmingham, MI 48007
(248) 645-0000 ~~ C ~ U'VJ ~ ~

JUN 29 2005

CONSENT DECREE

CLERK'S OFFICE, DETROIT·PSG U.S.DlSTRICT COURT

On June 30, 2005, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

("EEOC" or the "Commission") commenced this action in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, against the Defendant, The Pepsi Bottling

Group, Inc. ("Defendant" or "PBG"). The Commission alleged in its Complaint that Charging

1

Party, Joe Golson, ("Charging Party" or "Golson") was denied the position of Warehouse Loader because of his disability, insulin dependant diabetes. Additionally, the Commission alleged that Mr. Golson had been subjected to a Physical Abilities Test that was not job related and consistent with business necessity, in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, ("ADA").
PBG denies the allegations in the Complaint, and specifically denies that Mr. Golson is disabled under the ADA or that it denied him any employment opportunities on the basis of any actual or perceived disability. PBG specifically avers that the Physical Abilities Test Mr. Golson took for the Warehouse Loader position is lawful, non-discriminatory, job related and consistent with business necessity.
FINAL DISPOSITION I. Through this Consent Decree ("Decree"), the Commission, on behalf of Joe Golson, and PBG desire to forever resolve all issues raised, presented or joined in this Civil Action and in EEOC Charge Number 230-A20-1740, without the burden, expense and potential delay of further litigation of all issues set forth in this lawsuit, and agree to be bound by the promises made herein.
STIPULATED FACTS 2. The Parties stipulate and agree that the EEOC is the agency of the United States government authorized to investigate allegations of unlawful employment discrimination, to bring civil actions to prohibit unlawful employment practices and to seek relieffor individuals affected by the practices complained of in this lawsuit. 3. PBG is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning
2

of Section 70 I (g) and (h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(g) and (h). PBG had at least twenty (20) employees for twenty (20) or more calendar weeks during the relevant time period.
4. Pursuant to The ADA, the Parties acknowledge the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofMichigan over the subject matter and Parties to this case for the purpose of entering this Decree, and, if necessary, enforcing the provisions of this Decree.
5. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. For purposes of this Decree and proceedings related to this Decree only, PBG agrees that all statutory conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
MONETARY RELIEF 6. PBG agrees to pay Golson monetary relief in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), subject to all applicable payroll withholding and deductions, within twenty (20) days of the later of: (I) the entry ofthis Decree; and (2) the expiration of the revocation period under the separate General Release executed by Mr. Golson in conjunction with this Decree. A copy of the check shall be sent to Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226, within ten (10) days of issuance.
NON-MONETARY RELIEF 7. PBG has offered Golson on several occasions the opportunity to return to work in the position of Warehouse Loader, with a seniority date ofNovember, 2002, at the rate of pay currently prescribed through its Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"). Under PBG's unconditional
3

offer, Golson was not required to take the Physical Abilities Test before returning to work, nor was he required to take the Physical Abilities Test so long as he remained employed by PBG. The EEOC acknowledges and informs the Court that Mr. Golson has declined PBG's unconditional offer.
8. PBG shall assist Golson, in good faith, in Golson's efforts to obtain a waiver from the Department of Transportation ("DOT"), though PBG shall have no liability if the DOT does not grant such a waiver to Mr. Golson. Subject to its obligations under any applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements, PBG agrees that it will consider Mr. Golson for a driver position at the Detroit Warehouse ifMr. Golson applies for such a position after he obtains a DOT waiver, ifhe is otherwise qualified for such a position, and if PBG has such a position available at its Detroit Warehouse at the time Mr. Golson obtains such a waiver.
9. PBG agrees that the Physical Abilities Test shall not be given to any current employee of PBG who is seeking to transfer to a position of Loader, Route Salesman or Merchandiser, if and only in the event that PBG reasonably determines that the employee has safely and adequately performed in the previous position and the previous position held by that employee is equally or more physically demanding than the new position sought.
10. The Commission acknowledges that PBG has been in a hiring freeze for the Loader position in the Detroit Warehouse. PBG agrees during the term of this Decree to provide written notice to the Detroit Regional Attorney of the EEOC within 30 days of hiring the first full-time permanent new entry hire for any of the position of Loader and/or Merchandiser.
II. PBG shall also contact AEI within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree and request that AEI to discuss in good faith possible accommodations with the Regional Attorney,
4

Detroit District Office, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that may allow individuals with disabilities to take, perform and complete the Physical Abilities Test. PBG shall request that AEI discuss, in good faith, possible accommodations with the Regional Attorney, Detroit District Office, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that will allow disabled employees to perform the essential functions of the positions of Loader, Route Salesman and Merchandiser. PBG shall consider implementing any recommendations from AEI resulting from its discussions with the EEOC, including but not limited to suspending or waiving the Physical Abilities Test, if appropriate.
NON -DISCRIMINATION 12. PBG, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, shall comply with the provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and PBG agrees that it will not unlawfully discriminate against any and all individuals who work for PBG.
NON-RETALIATION 13. PBG, through its directors, officers, agents, successors, assigns and employees, will not unlawfully retaliate against any person known to it who participated or cooperated in the investigation and civil action by the EEOC of Charge of Discrimination No: 230-A20-1740, filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 14. This Decree finally resolves all claims arising out of EEOC Charge No. 230-A20-
5

1740 and all claims presented by the EEOC Complaint. The Decree in no way affects the EEOC's rights to process any future charges that may be filed against PBG. The EEOC reserves all rights to proceed with respect to matters like and related to this matter but not covered by this Consent Decree and to secure relief on behalf of aggrieved persons not covered by the terms ofthis Consent Decree.
IS. The Parties agree that this Court shall retain jurisdiction and will have all available equitable powers, including injunctive relief, to enforce this Decree. Upon motion of either Party, the Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose of reviewing compliance of this Decree. The Parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to compliance prior to seeking review by the Court, and shall be required to give notice to each other ten (10) business days before moving for such review. If such review is deemed necessary by either Party, discovery will be conducted in an expedited fashion. More specifically, documents and other discovery materials shall be exchanged amongst the Parties within five (5) business days of Notice.
POSTING OF NOTICE 16. PBG shall post a mutually agreeable Notice, attached as Attachment A, in at least one (I) conspicuous location at its Detroit, Michigan Warehouse for a period notto exceed eighteen (18) months. In addition, PBG will continue to post all employment discrimination Notices as required by applicable law at all times in one (1) conspicuous place at its Detroit, Michigan location.
NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY 17. PBG has denied all allegations set forth in the EEOC's Complaint and those in Charge Number 230-A20-1740 along with any and all inferences of wrongdoing, and neither its
6

consent to the entry of this Decree, nor any of the terms or conditions set forth herein, shall constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case or be construed as an admission of liability, wrongdoing, guilt, and/or violation of federal law, which PBG expressly denies.
ALLOCATION OF COST 18. The Parties agree to pay their respective costs and attorneys fees associated with the drafting and enforcement ofthis Decree.
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE 19. If any provision of this Decree is found to be unenforceable by a Court, only the specific provision in question shall be affected and the other enforceable provisions shall remain in full force.
TRAINING 20. Within ninety (90) days of this Decree, PBG will provide to the EEOC the materials PBG has prepared to advise applicants who may have disabilities of their right to seek reasonable accommodation in taking the Physical Abilities Test. PBG will consider in good faith any comments and recommendations received from the EEOC with respect to said materials. During the term of this Decree, PBG shall also provide: (a) no less than two (2) hours of training to its officers, directors, supervisors, and managers located at the Detroit Warehouse on federal civil rights laws and equal employment responsibilities, including the Americans With Disabilities Act; and (b) no less than one (I) hour of diversity training to all permanent employees at the Detroit Warehouse.
7

DURATION 21. The Parties agree that the duration ofthis Decree shall be for a period ofeighteen (18) months. Respectfully submitted,

ADELE RAPPORT (P 33) ROBERT DAWKINS P 82389 TAMMY KLEIN (P50256) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Ave., Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-5673

Rogers & Hardin LLP 2700 International Tower, Peachtree Center 229 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1601 (404) 522-4700
ERIC J. PELTON Kienbaum, Opperwall, Harding & Pelton 325 S. Old Woodward Avenue Birmingham, MI 48007 (248) 645-0000
Attorneys for The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.

IT IS SO ORDERED:
~. A*~ 0.

JUl11 2005
DATE

8

EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES This notice is being posted pursuant to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., Civil Action Number ____ filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and resolved through a Consent Decree signed by both The Pepsi Bottling Group ("PBG") and the Commission. This notice is designed to inform employees of their rights guaranteed by federal law under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended ("ADA"). The ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability because of the individuals disability. The ADA further prohibits harassment of employees on the basis of disability. The ADA also mandates that an employer provide an employee with a disability with a reasonable accommodation to help them to perform the essential functions of their job provided that the employer will not suffer an undue hardship. PBG agrees that it will comply with the mandates of the ADA. If, however, PBG does not solve an employees concerns within a timely manner, an employee has the right to file a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Information on the EEOC can be obtained at its website at www.eeoc.gov

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?806288768236119-L_3...

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-72583-MOB-PJK

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pepsi Bottling Group Assigned to: Honorable Marianne O Battani Referred to: Honorable Paul J Komives Cause: No cause code entered

Date Filed: 06/29/2005 Date Terminated: 07/11/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Adele Rapport Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-5670 Email: Adele.Rapport@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tammy C. Klein Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-6701 Fax: 313-226-5673 Email: Tammy.Klein@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Pepsi Bottling Group also known as Pepsi Cola Company

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

1 of 2

5/30/2007 11:34 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?806288768236119-L_3...

06/29/2005 07/11/2005

1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Pepsi Bottling Group, Receipt No. USA.(LHack, ) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
2 CONSENT Decree Signed by Honorable Marianne O Battani. (LHack, ) (Entered: 07/12/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

05/30/2007 12:33:00

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:05-cv-72583-MOB-PJK

1

Cost:

0.08

2 of 2

5/30/2007 11:34 AM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - July 2005

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement07-05.html

EEOC v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. No. 05-72583 (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2005)
In this ADA action, the Detroit District Office alleged that defendant, a soft drink bottling company, failed to accommodate charging party's disability, diabetes, and discharged him from his position in its Detroit warehouse due to his disability. After 17 years as a delivery driver for defendant, charging party was diagnosed with diabetes. Three years later he was diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes, which meant that he was no longer qualified under the then-applicable U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations to transport goods in interstate commerce. Defendant refused to place charging party in an alternative position (warehouse loader) because he did not pass a Physical Ability Test (PAT) applicable to the position, even though charging party's delivery driver job was at least as physically demanding as the loader position. Defendant's procedures did not allow for an individualized assessment of a person's ability to perform the job. Defendant discharged charging party in April 2002.
Under the 18-month consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $75,000 in monetary relief. Charging party declined defendant's offer (made after defendant received the charge) to reinstate him into the warehouse loader position with seniority to November 2002. Defendant will make good faith efforts to help charging party obtain a DOT waiver, and if he obtains the waiver, defendant will consider him for a driver position in its Detroit warehouse if one is available. Defendant will not give the PAT to any current employee seeking a transfer into a loader, route salesman, or merchandiser position if the employee has safely and adequately performed an equally or more physically demanding job for defendant. Also, defendant will prepare materials advising applicants who may have disabilities of their right to seek a reasonable accommodation in taking the PAT. Defendant will not discriminate against employees under the ADA.

1 of 1

5/30/2007 11:38 AM