UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

I
I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

1
)

v.

THE VILLAGE OF WOODMERE,

I

OHIO,

Defendant.

NT

1

MAG. JUDGE M~HARGH

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, United States of America, alleges:

1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII").
I

I

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the action under 42 U.S.C. 8 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C.

I

I
9-1345.

3. Defendant Village of Woodmere is a body corporate and political subdivision of the

State of Ohio, established pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio.
4. The defendant is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e(a) and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e(b).

1

1

5. The defendant has discriminated against Amy Mengay, a former officer in the .

t1 t - -

I

I

defendant's police department, on the basis of her race, white, in violation of Section 703(a) of

1
I

I

Title W, 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by: .

1 I

i

(a) failing or refusing to confirm Mengay fiom probationary to regular status as a police

. ?

f

oficer within approximatelyone year after she began employment as a probationary

B
1. i

f

officer;

I

(b) failing or refusing to provide Mengay with any pre-disciplinary/termination hearing;

i
i

I

(c) terminating her employment as a police officer;

1 :

(d) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of its discrimination

against her.

6. 'The defendant has discriminated against Timothy Ellis, a former officer in the

defendant's police department, on the basis of his race, white, in violation of Section 703(a) of

Title VJI, 42 U.S.C. $2000e-2(a),among other ways, by:

(a) terminating his employment as a police officer;

(b) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of its discrimination

against him.

7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") received a timely charge

filed by Mengay (EEOC Charge No. 220-2005-00058), in which she alleged that she had been

discriminated against by the defendant on the basis of, inter alia, her race.

8. The EEOC received a timely charge filed by Ellis (EEOC Charge No. 220-2005-

00146)~in which he alleged that he had been discriminated against by the defendant on the basis
I
of, inter alia, his race.

9. Pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the

I

charges filed by Mengay and Ellis, found reisonable cause to believe that the defendant

ij
.$

1

discriminated against Mengay because of, inter alia, her race, and against Ellis because of, inter

alia, his race. The EEOC attempted unsuccessfully to achieve through conciliation a voluntary

resolution of the matters and subsequently referred the matters to the Department of Justice.

10. All conditions precedent to the filing of suit have been performed or have occurred.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff United States prays that the Court grant the following relief:

(a) Enjoin the defendant fi-om failing and refusing to:

(i) provide sufficient remedial,relief to make whole Mengay and Ellis for the

losses each has suffered as a result of the discriminationagainst her or him as

alleged in this complaint;

9

(ii) take other appropriate non-discriminatory measures to overcome the effects of

- B

the discrimination; and

(b) Award compensatory damages to Mengay and ElIis, as would fully compensate each

?
1

'i

for injuries resulting from the defendant's discriminatory conduct, pursuant to and within

!
i

the statutory limitations of Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C.

1 I

1

Plaintiff prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together with its costs and

1

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C.
ALBERT0 GONZALES Attorney General
WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
Q4y & - .
DAVID J. MER David.Palmer@usdoj.gov Chief Employment Litigation Section

d
$ .. '

4

.

!
b 1

4 I

William.Fenton@usdoj.gov Member, D.C. Bar, No. 414990 KRISTOFOR J. HAMMOND Kristofor.Hammond@usdoj.gov Member, Virginia Bar, No. 44133 Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Rm 4016 PHI3 Washington, DC 20530 T h x ( 2 0 2 F 3 53r301-1 Facsimile: (202) 353-8961
GREGORY A. WHITE United States Attomey MARCIA JOHNSON Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney 801 West Superior Ave., Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. THE VILLAGE OF WOODMERE,OHIO
Defendant.

) CASE NO. 1:07CV1541 ) ) JUDGE NUGENT ) ) MAGISTRATE McHARGH ) ) DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF ) WOODMERE’S ANSWER TO ) COMPLAINT )

Defendant The Village of Woodmere, Ohio, for its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, admits, denies and avers as follows:
1. Admits the action is brought by the United States pursuant to Title VII, but denies to the extent the “enforcement” action has any validity.
2. As to timely filed claims, admits; otherwise, as to untimely claims, denied. 3. Defendant Village of Woodmere admits that it is a m unicipal corporation and
political subdivision which operates under the Home Rule authority granted by the Ohio Constitu tion and pursuan t to the Village’s Charter. The remainder of Complaint ¶ 3 is denied for want of specificity. 4. Admits. 5. Admits that Amy Mengay was a former officer in the Village’s Police Department who was lawfully terminated, but denies the rem aining allegations, each and every, all and singular, contained in Complaint ¶ 5.

6. Admits that Timothy Ellis was a former officer in the Village’s Police Department who was lawfully terminated, but denies the rem aining allegations, each and every, all and singular, contained in Complaint ¶ 6.
7. Admits that Mengay filed a charge of di scrimination with the EEOC, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Complaint ¶ 7.
8. Admits that Ellis filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Complaint ¶ 8.
9. Admits that the EEOC’s conciliation efforts were unsuccessful and that the matter was subsequently referred to the Departm ent of Justice, but denies the rem aining allegations contained in Complaint ¶ 9.
10. Denies the allegations contained in Complaint ¶ 10. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The claims are subject to the “sam e actor” defense in th at the em ployees were appointed and discharged by the same person.
2. Both Ellis and Mengay were probationary employees who did not have a property right to continued em ployment as neith er had satisfactorily com pleted their probationary periods.
3. Res judicata, claim/issue preclusion, and merger bar. 4. To demonstrate that the alleged com parators were sim ilarly-situated in all
material respects, the Plaintiff must dem onstrate, inter alia, that the sam e decisionmaker made the em ployment decision, but also that the em ployment of the alleged comparators was probationary in nature.
2

5. There were legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the termination of Ellis and

Mengay.

6. Statute of limitation operates to bar some or all of the claims.

7. Plaintiff has failed to state a facially neutral employm ent practice or allege a

pattern of discriminatory decisionmaking necessary for a dis parate impact claim,

but rather only individual decisions wh ich are unique to each employee’s

circumstances.

8. Failure to mitigate.

Respectf

ully submitted,

John TOMINO 803 Medina, (330) (330) E-m
The

s/ John D. Latchney __________________________________________
D. Latchney (0046539) & LATCHNEY, LLC, LPA
E. Washington St., Suite 200 Ohio 44256
723-4656 723-5445 Fax ail: jlatchney@brightdsl.net Attorney for Defendant Village of Woodmere, Ohio

JURY DEMAND Defendant The Village of Woodmere, Ohio hereby demands a jury trial.

s/

John D. Latchney

__________________________________________

JOHN

D. LATCHNEY (0046539)

TOMINO & LATCHNEY, LLC, LPA

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of Defendant Village of Woodmere’s Answer to C omplaint was served via the Court’s Electronic Filing System on this 26th day of June 2007 upon:

Kristofor J. Hammond U.S. Department of Justice-Civil Rights Division Ste. 4016 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

Marcia W. Johnson Office of the U.S. Attorney Cleveland Northern District of Ohio Ste. 400 801 Superior Avenue, W Cleveland, Ohio 44113

William B. Fenton U.S. Department of Justice-Civil Rights Division Ste. 4016 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

s/

John D. Latchney

__________________________________________

John

D. Latchney (0046539)

TOMINO

& LATCHNEY, LLC, LPA

4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY ELLIS Plaintiff,
v. THE VILLAGE OF WOODMERE, OHIO, et al.
Defendants.

) CASE NO. 1:07-CV-1541 ) ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) ) ) ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS ) TO COMPLAINT OF TIMOTHY J. ELLIS ) ) (JURY DEMAND) )

Defendants, for their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, admit, deny and aver as follows: 1. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 2. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. 3. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. 4. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. 5. Admit that Plaintiff, Timothy J. Ellis, is a white citizen of the United States, but deny the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 6. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 7. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. 8. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. 9. Reaffirm their previous admissions and denials in response to Paragraph 9.

10. Admit that in March of 2003, Plaintiff Ellis was hired as a part-time police officer for the Village of Woodmere, but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10.
11. In response to Co mplaint Paragraph 11, admit that Plaintiff Ellis was appointed as a f ulltime probationary police officer for the V illage of Woodmere, but deny the rem aining allegations contained in Paragraph 11.
12. Admit that on October 7, 2004, Defendant Broadie identified a citizen complaint regarding excessive use of force, a re primand and disc ourtesies toward Defendants Patrick and Broadie as legitimate non-discriminatory reasons to terminate the pr obationary employment of Plaintiff, but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12.
13. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 13. 14. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14. 15. Admit Defendant Broadie, in her official capacity as Safety Director or Mayor of Defendant
Village of Woodmere, fired the Plaintiff , but deny the rem aining allegations contained in Paragraph 15. 16. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 16. 17. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17. 18. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. 19. Admit Defendant Broadie, in her offici al position as the City’s Safety Director or Mayor, fired Plaintiff, but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 19. 20. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20. 21. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. 22. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 22. 23. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.
2

24. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24. 25. Admit Defendant Broadie promoted Officer Brown, but de ny the re maining allegations
contained in Paragraph 25. 26. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26. 27. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 27. 28. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28. 29. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 29. 30. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 30. 31. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31. 32. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32. 33. Reaffirm their previous admissions and denials in response to Paragraph 33. 34. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. 35. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 35. 36. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 36. 37. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 37.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Judicial and/or quasi-judicial immunity for the individually named Council members. 2. Qualified immunity. 3. Individuals cannot be liable under Title VII. 4. Res judicata, claim/issue preclusion, and merger bar. 5. Statute of limitation operates to bar some or all of the claims. 6. Both Ellis and Mengay were pr obationary employees who did no t have a property right to
continued employment as neither had satisfactorily completed their probationary periods.
3

7. The claims are subject to the “same actor” defense in that the employees were appointed and

discharged by the same person.

8. To demonstrate that the alleged comparators were similarly-situated in all material respects,

the Plaintiff must demonstr ate, inter alia, that the same decisionmaker made the

employment decision, but also that the empl oyment of t he alleged comparators was

probationary in nature.

9. There were legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the termination of Ellis and Mengay.

10. Plaintiff has fai led to state a faciall y neutral employment practi ce or allege a patt ern of

discriminatory decisionmaking necessary for a disparate impact claim, but rat her only

individual decisions which are unique to each employee’s circumstances.

11. Failure to mitigate.

12. Failure to plead the inadequacy of state remedies.

13. Failure to exhaust state remedies.

Respectf

ully submitted,

_____________ John TO
Medi (330) (330)

s/ John D. Latchney _______________________
D. Latchney (0046539) MINO & LATCHNEY, LLC, LPA 803 E. Washington St., Suite 200
na, Ohio 44256 723-4656 723-5445 Fax Attorney for Defendants

JURY DEMAND Defendants hereby demand a jury trial.
s/ John D. Latchney
4

_____________ John TO

_______________________ D. Latchney (0046539) MINO & LATCHNEY, LLC, LPA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing Answer of Defendants was served upon counsel for Plaintiff via the Court’s ECF System on this 10th day of September 2007.

_____________ John TO

s/ John D. Latchney ________________________
D. Latchney (0046539) MINO & LATCHNEY, LLC, LPA

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

AMY MENGAY Plaintiff,
v. THE VILLAGE OF WOODMERE, OHIO, et al.
Defendants.

) CASE NO. 1:07-CV-1541 ) ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) ) ) ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS ) TO COMPLAINT OF AMY MENGAY ) ) (JURY DEMAND) )

Defendants, for their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, admit, deny and aver as follows: 1. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 2. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. 3. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. 4. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. 5. Admit that Plaintiff , Amy Mengay, is a white citizen of the United States, but de ny the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 6. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 7. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. 8. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. 9. Reaffirm their previous admissions and denials in response to Paragraph 9.

10. Admit that in 2002, P laintiff Mengay was hired as police offi cer for the Village of Woodmere, but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10.
11. Admit Defendant Village of Wo odmere appointed Plaintiff as a pr obationary full-time police officer on December 18, 2002, but de ny the remaining allegation contained in Paragraph 11.
12. Admit that Plaintiff was kept as a probationary police officer, which status was supported by the Chief of Police, but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12.
13. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 13. 14. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14. 15. Admit Defendant Broadie served as bot h Mayor and Saf ety Director of Defendant Village
of Woodmere, but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 15. 16. Admit that on or about July 2 0, 2003, Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident, but deny
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 16. 17. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17. 18. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. 19. Admit that on or about February 7, 2004, Plai ntiff was involved in a traffic accident, but
deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 19. 20. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20. 21. Admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. 22. Admit Defendant Broadie is the City’s Safety Director and wa s superior to Police Chief
Lamont Lockhart, but the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 22. 23. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23. 24. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24.
2

25. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25. 26. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26. 27. Admit that W oodmere black off icer Masai Brown was not f ired, but deny rem aining
allegations contained in Paragraph 27. 28. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28. 29. Admit Defendant Broadie promoted Officer Brown, but de ny the re maining allegations
contained in Paragraph 29. 30. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 30. 31. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31. 32. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32. 33. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 33. 34. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. 35. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 35. 36. Reaffirm their previous admissions and denials in response to Paragraph 36. 37. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 37. 38. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 38. 39. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 39. 40. Deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 40.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Judicial and/or quasi-judicial immunity for the individually named Council members. 2. Qualified immunity. 3. Individuals cannot be liable under Title VII. 4. Res judicata, claim/issue preclusion, and merger bar.
3

5. Statute of limitation operates to bar some or all of the claims.

6. Both Ellis and Mengay were pr obationary employees who did no t have a property right to

continued employment as neither had satisfactorily completed their probationary periods.

7. The claims are subject to the “same actor” defense in that the employees were appointed and

discharged by the same person.

8. To demonstrate that the alleged comparators were similarly-situated in all material respects,

the Plaintiff must demonstr ate, inter alia, that the same decisionmaker made the

employment decision, but also that the empl oyment of t he alleged comparators was

probationary in nature.

9. There were legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the termination of Ellis and Mengay.

10. Plaintiff has fai led to state a faciall y neutral employment practi ce or allege a pa ttern of

discriminatory decisionmaking necessary for a disparate impact claim, but rat her only

individual decisions which are unique to each employee’s circumstances.

11. Failure to mitigate.

12. Failure to plead the inadequacy of state remedies.

13. Failure to exhaust state remedies.

Respectf

ully submitted,

_____________ John TO
Medi (330) (330)

s/ John D. Latchney _______________________
D. Latchney (0046539) MINO & LATCHNEY, LLC, LPA 803 E. Washington St., Suite 200
na, Ohio 44256 723-4656 723-5445 Fax Attorney for Defendants

4

JURY DEMAND

Defendants hereby demand a jury trial.

_____________ John TO

s/ John D. Latchney _______________________
D. Latchney (0046539) MINO & LATCHNEY, LLC, LPA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing Answer of Defendants was served upon counsel for Plaintiff via the Court’s ECF System on this 10th day of September 2007.

_____________ John TO

s/ John D. Latchney ________________________
D. Latchney (0046539) MINO & LATCHNEY, LLC, LPA

5

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

AMY MENGAY, 4504 Gamma Avenue Newburgh Heights, OH 44105,

) CASE NO.: 1:07CV1541 )

Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

)

-vs-

C O M P L A I N T

)

Trial by Jury Endorsed Hereon

)

THE VILLAGE OF WOODMERE,

)

OHIO

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

)

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

YOLANDO E. BROADIE, individually

and in her official capacity as Mayor AND )

Safety Director, Village of Woodmere, Ohio

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

)

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

JAMES JORDAN, individually and in his

official capacity of President and Member of )

Council, Woodmere City Council

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

)

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

CAROLYN L. PATRICK, individually and

in her official capacity as Member of Council, )

1

Woodmere City Council

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

SHELLEY B. ROSS, individually and in her )

official capacity as Member of Council,

Woodmere City Council

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

GERALD CARRIER, individually and in )

his official capacity as Member of Council,

Woodmere City Council

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

JOYCE HOLBERT, individually and in her )

official capacity as Member of Council,

Woodmere City Council

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

)

Defendants. )

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action under instituted, inter alia, under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-1, et seq., as amended (2007 Supp.), and

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, as amended (2007 Supp.), the

Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2007 Supp.) and the Ohio Civil

Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code §§4112.01, et seq. (2007 Supp.) to vindicate state

2

and federally protected rights against unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and retaliation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This present and continuing action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-6(f) (2007 Supp.) (hereinafter referred to as "Title VII") with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission entering a finding that the evidence obtained during the investigation established a violation of Title VII on or about May 9, 2005 and timely filed in a motion of intervention as of right with the case of United States of America vs. The Village of Woodmere, Ohio filed on May 25, 2007. With respect to federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§1981a and 1983, jurisdiction is asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1343 (3) and (4) and jurisdiction is asserted likewise with respect to declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2202-2202. With respect to state claims, jurisdiction is asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 3. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, plaintiff Amy Mengay filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the defendants and with respect to present and continuing claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § l98la (2005 Supp.), jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
3

§§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343(3) and (4) and 1345 and, with respect to pendent state claims and claims under the Ohio Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4112.01, et seq., jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
4. The unlawful employment practices alleged were and continue to be committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff, AMY MENGAY, is a white citizen of the United States who, at all relevant times, was employed by the defendants, all of whom are black, and who has sought and continues to seek to perform her duties as a police officer free from restrictions of race and retaliation. 6. Defendant, THE CITY OF WOODMERE, OHIO is an “employer” as defined by Title VII. 7. Defendants, YOLANDO E. BROADIE, JAMES JORDAN, SHELLEY B. ROSS, CAROLYN L. PATRICK, GERALD CARRIER, and JOYCE HOLBERT, individually and collectively operated under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of equal employment opportunities on account of race and color and are employers for purposes of §1981a, §1983 and Chapter 4112. 8. At all relevant times, defendant has been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(b), (g) and (h).
4

Count I 9. Plaintiff reasserts the foregoing allegations and incorporates them by reference as if fully set forth herein. 10. Plaintiff was hired by defendant Village of Woodmere, Ohio on May 9, 2002 as a police officer. 11. Because of her performance, defendant Village of Woodmere promoted the plaintiff to a full time police officer on December 18, 2002. 12. Plaintiff was kept as a probationary officer even though defendants’ policy entitles the officer to automatic full time status, which status was supported by the Chief of Police, but opposed by defendant Broadie. 13. Woodmere Black officers who complete their probationary period are automatically given full time status. 14. Defendant Broadie attempted to prolong plaintiff’s probationary status in a manner inconsistent with the rights provided to Woodmere black officers. 15. Beknownst to the plaintiff, defendant Broadie who served as both mayor and safety director of defendant Village of Woodmere, make clear to plaintiff’s superior, Chief of Police Lamont Lockhart, that because the Village of Woodmere was a predominantly black city, she preferred by her actions to have black officers on the Woodmere police force rather than white officers.
5

16. On or about July 20, 2003, plaintiff was involved in a minor traffic accident which was determined to be the fault of the other driver, but was ordered to be disciplined for it by the defendants.
17. Woodmere Black officers involved in significantly more serious infractions and misbehavior were not disciplined.
18. Woodmere black officer Benny Baker was involved in a serious traffic accident, but was not disciplined at all by the defendants.
19. On or about February 7, 2004, plaintiff was involved in a minor traffic accident which was determined to be the fault of the other driver.
20. Although plaintiff was cleared and the other driver cited, defendant Broadie decided to use the February 7, 2004 at a means to fire plaintiff even though it was the fault of a third person and not the plaintiff.
21. On May 2, 2004, plaintiff scraped a front bumper on a concrete base causing several hundred dollars in damages.
22. Acting under color of state law, defendant Broadie in her official position as the city’s safety director and as superior to Police Chief LaMont Lockhart intervened and ordered that she be fired.
23. Police Chief Lockhart objected to defendant Broadie that the discipline of termination against the plaintiff was disproportionate and racially discriminatory.
6

24. Defendant Broadie punished Police Chief Lockhart as insubordinate for initially refusing to fire the plaintiff.
25. Defendant Broadie overrode the police chief in furtherance of her official plan to rid the police department of white officers.
26. Defendants were fully aware that black officers are treated more favorably than white officers and would not be terminated for minor violations.
27. Defendants were aware that Woodmere black officer Masai Brown was arrested for felonious assault with a firearm, kidnapping with a firearm and possession of criminal tools, but was not fired.
28. Defendants were aware that Woodmere black officer Masai Brown falsified and destroyed public records, lied to superior officers, found to have been engaged in incompetence and neglect of duty, but was not fired.
29. Despite the foregoing and over objection by Police Chief LaMont Lockhard, defendant Broadie, with the support of the other defendants, promoted Officer Brown.
30. Defendants were aware that Woodmere black officer John Patterson was found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer arising out of road rage where he threatened to kill a citizen, but was not fired.
31. Defendants were aware that Woodmere black officer John Patterson also damaged a bumper, but was not fired.
7

32. On July 15, 2004, defendants acting under color of state law and despite their awareness that black officers engaged in more serious infractions are not terminated, approved the termination of the plaintiff.
33. Defendants, acting in their official capacities, furthered the village’s plan of racial preference by terminating the plaintiff and terminating another white officer while being aware that black officers are not disciplined for actions significantly more serious that those asserted by the plaintiff and by another white officer.
34. The acts and conduct of the defendants have been and continue to be intentional and in wanton and reckless disregard of the rights and feelings of the plaintiff.
35. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of the defendant, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety and loss of esteem and self-worth as well as loss of productive ability in comparison to that which he could have performed except for discrimination on account of race.
Count II 36. Plaintiff reasserts the foregoing allegations and incorporates them by reference as if fully set forth herein. 37. Defendants have denied and continue to deny to the plaintiff the statutory right to enter into and maintain an employment contractual
8

relationship with the defendants free of discrimination and retaliation on the
basis of his race.
38. Defendant has purposefully deprived plaintiff equal contract
opportunities on the job on the basis of race.
39. The acts and conduct of the defendant have been and continue to be
intentional, retaliatory and in wanton and reckless disregard of the rights and
feelings of the plaintiff.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of the
defendant, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional
distress, humiliation, anxiety and loss of esteem and self-worth as well as loss of
productivity in comparison to that which he could have performed except for
retaliation and discrimination by the defendant on account of race.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to grant the
following relief:
A. Declare that the acts and conduct of the defendants constitute violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., the Civil Rights Act of l991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code §§4112.01, et seq.;
B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert
9

of participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race, and further enjoin any acts or conduct which has the purpose or effect of retaliating against the plaintiff for asserting rights against discrimination based on race;
C. Order defendants to institute and to otherwise carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for black employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
D. Order defendants to reinstate the plaintiff and to make whole the plaintiff by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest and for other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
E. Grant to plaintiff appropriate compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages;
F. Award the plaintiff costs in this action including statutory reasonable attorney fees as provided by statute;
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper and in the public interest.
/s/ Avery Friedman
10

AVERY S. FRIEDMAN (0006103) 701 The City Club Building 850 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114-3358 (216)-621-9282 FAX 621-9283 averyfriedman@hotmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff Amy Mengay TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury. /s/ Avery Friedman AVERY S. FRIEDMAN
11

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

TIMOTHY J. ELLIS, 59 James Place Northfield, OH 44067,

) CASE NO.: 1:07CV1541 )

) Plaintiff,
)

JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

-vs-

) COMPLAINT

) Trial by Jury Endorsed Hereon

)

THE VILLAGE OF WOODMERE,

OHIO

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

YOLANDA E. BROADIE, individually and )

in her official capacity as Mayor and Safety

Director, Village of Woodmere, Ohio

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

JAMES JORDAN, individually and in his )

official capacity of President and Member of

Council, Woodmere City Council

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

) and
)

1

SHELLY ROSS, individually and in her )

official capacity as Member of Council,

Woodmere City Council

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

And

)

CAROLYN L. PATRICK, individually and )

in her official capacity as Member of Council,

Woodmere City Council

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

GERALD CARRIER, individually and in )

his official capacity as Member of Council,

Woodmere City Council

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

and

)

JOYCE HOLBERT, individually and in her )

official capacity as Member of Council,

Woodmere City Council

)

27899 Chagrin Boulevard

Woodmere, OH 44122

)

Defendants. )

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action under instituted, inter alia, under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-1, et seq., as amended (2007 Supp.), and

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, as amended (2007 Supp.), the

Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (2007 Supp.) and the Ohio Civil

Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code §§4112.01, et seq. (2007 Supp.) to vindicate state

2

and federally protected rights against unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and retaliation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This present and continuing action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-6(f) (2005 Supp.) (hereinafter referred to as "Title VII") with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission entering a finding that the evidence obtained during the investigation established a violation of Title VII on or about May 9, 2005 and timely filed in a motion of intervention as of right with the case of United States of America vs. The Village of Woodmere, Ohiol filed on May 25, 2007. 3. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, plaintiff Timothy J. Ellis filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the defendants and with respect to present and continuing claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § l98la (2005 Supp.), jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343(3) and (4) and 1345 and, with respect to pendent state claims and claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (2007 Supp.) , and the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code §§ 4112.01, et seq., jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 (1990 Supp.).
3

4. The unlawful employment practices alleged were and continue to be committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff, TIMOTHY J. ELLIS, is a white citizen of the United States who, at all relevant times, was employed by the defendants, all of whom are black, and who has sought and continues to seek to perform his duties as a police officer free from restrictions of race and retaliation. 6. Defendant, THE CITY OF WOODMERE, OHIO is an “employer” as defined by Title VII. 7. Defendants, YOLANDA E. BROADIE, JAMES JORDAN, SHELLY ROSS, CAROLYN L. PATRICK, GERALD CARRIER and JOYCE HOLBERT, individually and collectively operated under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of equal employment opportunities on account of race and color. 8. At all relevant times, defendant has been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(b), (g) and (h).
Count I 9. Plaintiff reasserts the foregoing allegations and incorporates them by reference as if fully set forth herein.
4

10. On March 28, 2003, defendants initially hired the plaintiff as a probationary police officer for defendant Village of Woodmere.
11. On October 8, 2003, defendants passed a resolution hiring the plaintiff as a full time police officer for defendant Village of Woodmere.
12. As the one-year vested period approached on October 7, 2004, defendants identified a citizen complaint, a minor reprimand and purported discourtesies toward defendants Patrick and Broadie as a way to terminate the plaintiff.
13. Knowing the complaints to be minor and realizing they would be unable to fire the plaintiff, defendants searched for an additional reason to fire the plaintiff before the one-year period.
14. With the passage of the one-year period, on October 15, 2004, plaintiff was required to testify in a hearing involving a white police officer and offered sworn testimony which the defendants perceived as inimical to their interests.
15. Immediately after the testimony, defendant Broadie, in her official capacity as Safety Director and Mayor of defendant Village of Woodmere, fired the plaintiff.
16. On October 15, 2004, defendants fired the plaintiff. 17. Beknownst to the plaintiff, defendant Broadie who served as both mayor and safety director of defendant Village of Woodmere, make clear to plaintiff’s superior, Chief of Police Lamont Lockhart, that because the Village
5

of Woodmere was a predominantly black city, she preferred by her actions to have black officers on the Woodmere police force rather than white officers.
18. Defendants Broadie and others were fully aware that Woodmere black officers involved in significantly more serious infractions and misbehavior were not disciplined or fired.
19. Acting under color of state law, defendant Broadie in her official position as the city’s safety director and as superior to Police Chief LaMont Lockhart intervened and ordered that plaintiff be fired.
20. Police Chief Lockhart objected to defendant Broadie that the discipline of termination against the plaintiff was disproportionate and racially discriminatory.
21. Defendant Broadie punished Police Chief Lockhart as insubordinate for initially refusing to fire the plaintiff.
22. Defendant Broadie overrode the police chief in furtherance of her official plan to rid the police department of white officers.
23. Defendants were aware that Woodmere black officer Masai Brown was arrested for felonious assault with a firearm, kidnapping with a firearm and possession of criminal tools, but was not fired.
24. Defendants were aware that Woodmere black officer Masai Brown falsified and destroyed public records, lied to superior officers, found to have been engaged in incompetence and neglect of duty, but was not fired.
6

25. Despite the foregoing and over objection by Police Chief LaMont Lockhard, defendant Broadie, with the support of the other defendants, promoted Officer Brown.
26. Defendants were aware that Woodmere black officer John Patterson was found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer arising out of road rage where he threatened to kill a citizen, but was not fired.
27. Defendants were aware that Woodmere black officer John Patterson caused damage to village property, but was not fired.
28. Woodmere black officer Benny Baker was involved in a serious traffic accident, but was not disciplined at all by the defendants.
29. On or about October 15, 2004, defendants acting under color of state law and despite their awareness that black officers engaged in more serious infractions are not terminated, approved the termination of the plaintiff.
30. Defendants, acting in their official capacities, furthered the village’s plan of racial preference by terminating the plaintiff and terminating another white officer while being aware that black officers are not disciplined for actions significantly more serious that those asserted by the plaintiff and by another white officer.
31. The acts and conduct of the defendants have been and continue to be intentional and in wanton and reckless disregard of the rights and feelings of the plaintiff.
7

32. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of the defendant, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety and loss of esteem and self-worth as well as loss of productive ability in comparison to that which he could have performed except for discrimination on account of race.
Count II 33. Plaintiff reasserts the foregoing allegations and incorporates them by reference as if fully set forth herein. 34. Defendants have denied and continue to deny to the plaintiff the statutory right to enter into and maintain an employment contractual relationship with the defendants free of discrimination and retaliation on the basis of his race. 35. Defendant has purposefully deprived plaintiff equal contract opportunities on the job on the basis of race. 36. The acts and conduct of the defendant have been and continue to be intentional, retaliatory and in wanton and reckless disregard of the rights and feelings of the plaintiff. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of the defendant, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety and loss of esteem and self-worth as well as loss of
8

productivity in comparison to that which he could have performed except for
retaliation and discrimination by the defendant on account of race.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to grant the
following relief:
A. Declare that the acts and conduct of the defendants constitute violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., the Civil Rights Act of l991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code §§4112.01, et seq.;
B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert of participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race, and further enjoin any acts or conduct which has the purpose or effect of retaliating against the plaintiff for asserting rights against discrimination based on race;
C. Order defendants to institute and to otherwise carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for black employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
D. Order defendants to reinstate the plaintiff and to make whole the plaintiff by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest and for other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
9

E. Grant to plaintiff appropriate compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages;
F. Award the plaintiff costs in this action including statutory reasonable attorney fees as provided by statute;
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper and in the public interest.
/s/ Avery Friedman AVERY S. FRIEDMAN (0006103) 701 The City Club Building 850 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114-3358 (216)-621-9282 FAX 621-9283 averyfriedman@hotmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff Timothy J. Ellis
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury.
/s/ Avery Friedman AVERY S. FRIEDMAN
10

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 1 of 12. PageID #: 959 .case ~:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ·NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OIDO

UNITED STA1ES OF Alv:IERICA,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

. AMY MENGAY and TllvfOTHY ELLIS, )

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

v.

)

)

.THE VILLAGE OF WOOD1viERE, OIDO, )

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-1541 Judge Donald C. Nugent Magistrate McHargh

·CONSENT DECREE

,:

I ~\

In July and October, 2004, respectively, Amy Mengay ("Mengay'') and Timothy Ellis

· :_ ("Ellis") were discharged from their_ employment positions as police officers with the Village of

Woodmere, Ohio, Police Departlnent. On October 12 and October 26,2004, respectively, ·

. Mengay and Ellis flied charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")

against the Village of Woodm:ere ("Woodmere"), alleging inter alia, that they had been

-unlawfully discharged on the basis ofrace (white). The EEOC found probable cause on both

.charges and.referred those matters to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The United States has filed suit alleging that Woodniere violated Title VTI ofthe Civil

.

.

Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title Vll"), by discharging

Mengay and Ellis because of their race. Mengay and Ellis joined the United States' suit as

plaintiff-intervenors on A~gust 24,2007.

Woodmere disagrees with the EEOC's probable cause finding and denies each and every

allegation of discrimination and/or retaliati<?n made against it by the United States, Mengay and

Ellis in this lawsuit. Woodmere asserts Mengay and Ellis were not discharged from employment

because oftheir race, that Mengay was not maintained in a probationary status because ofher

1

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 2 of 12. PageID #: 960 .Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 2 of 14

race, and Ellis was not retaliated against for testifying in support ofMengay during her appeal

hearing before Woodmere Village Council..

Neyertheless, the United States and Woodmere (collectively referred to as the "Parties"),

desiring that the United States' action be settled without ~e burden ofprotracted litigation, agree

to the jurisdiction ofthis Court over the parties and the subject matter of this action. The Parties

also hereby waive, for purposes ofthis Consent Decree ("Decree"), hearings and findings offact

and conclusions of law on all issues, and agree to the entry ofthis Decree as final and binding

among them with regard to th~ issues raised in the United States' Complaint in this case. This

i

Decree, being entered into with the consent of the Parties, shall in no way constitute an

I

! .

adjudication or finding on the merits ofthe case(s), nor be construed as an admission by

Woodmere or a finding of any wrongdoing or violation by Woodmere of any applicable federal

law or regulation with respect to· the allega~ons in the Co~plaints.

In resolution ofthe United States' Complaint, the Parties hereby AGREE to, and the

Court expressly APPROVES, ENTERS and ORDERS, the following:

I. PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE

1. The purposes of this Decree are to ensure that:

(a) Woodmere does not subject any employee to discrimination on the basis of race or

retaliation in violation of Title VTI (discrimination as used in this Decree includes

harassment on the basis ofrace and/or retaliation in violation of Title VII);

(b) Woodmere maintains clear, meaningful and well-publicized policies and

procedures prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race or retaliation in the

workplace;

I

.

2

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 3 of 12. PageID #: 961 Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 3 of 14
(c) Woodmere provides adequate training to all employees, supervisors, Council Members and Mayors concerning Title Vll's prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race or retaliation, and about Woodmere's policies. and procedures prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race or retaliation in the workplace;
(d) Woodmere identifies and e~ploys a qualified Equal Employment Opportunities Officer (''EEO Officer") to administer Woodmere's policies and procedures prohibiting discrimination oii the basis ofrace or retaliation in the workplace, and to receive and investigate complaints of such discrimination; and
(e) Woodmere provides Mengay and Ellis certain remedial relief. ll. SCOPE OF DECREE 2. This Decree resolves all legal and equitable claims arising out of the Complaint filed by the United States against Woodmere in this action. Mengay and Woodmere and Ellis and Woodmere have entered into separate written agre~ments that contain a full release of all of their
I
potential claims against Woodmere, including their Title VII claims, as well as other matters not directly pertinent to the resolution ofthe United States' claims in this case.
m. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
3. Woodmere, its employees, supervisors, agents and all individuals in active concert or p~cipation with it, are enjoined from:
(a) engaging in any act or practice that unlawfully discriminates against any person on · the basis ofrace in violation of Title VII; and
. (b) retaliating against, or in any way adversely affecting the terms and ·conditions of employment of, any person because that person has engaged in practices protected
3

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 4 of 12. PageID #: 962 .Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 4 of 14
under 42 U.S.C. §20qOe-3(a), including, but not limited to, cooperating with the United States' ·investigation or litigation ofthis case. IV. AMENDMENT AND DISSEMINATION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 4. Within ninety (90) calendar days from th~ date of entry of this Decree, to ensure compliance with Title VII, Woodmere shall review and, to the extent necessary, adopt or amend
. its written policies and procedures that prohibit employment discrimination to include the
following provisions:
(a) a description of the manner in which an employee of Woodmere may make a
complaint of employment discrimination including the name and contact information for the EEO Officer; (b) a clear statement that a complaint of employment discrimination may be written or oral;
(c) the identification, by job title and telephone contact information, of all individuals
who are authorized to accept complaints of employment discrimination against Woodmere;
(d) a statement that all complaints ofemployment discrimination will be promptly
forwar4ed to the EEO Officer for review and investigated to the extent warranted; and (e) a statement that Woodmere will provide the results of an investigation into a complaint of employment discrimination to the complaining party in wrifu:lg no · later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date the complaint is received, or, for a complaint alleging harassment, as soon as possible to comply with its obligations under Title VII to investigate such complaints promptly (but in no
4

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 5 of 12. PageID #: 963 .Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 . Filed 08/12/2008 Page 5 of 14

event later than 30 days), unless a written explanation is submitted to the

complainant and the United States as to the reason(s) a response to the complaint

could not be completed Within the 30 day time frame. To the extent the Parties

disagree as to whether good cause exists for the delay, either party may submit the

issue to the Court for resolution as outlined in Paragraph 17 below.

5. Wi~ thirty (30) calendar days from the date of entry of this Decree, Woodmere Village

Council shall provide to the United States for its approval the name and q~cations of the

person proposed to have responsibility for ensuring that the written policies and procedures set

forth in Paragraph 4, above, are fully implemented and complied with (the "EEO Officer"). The

United States shall indicate its approval ofthe proposed EEO Officer within seven (7) business

.

'

days, or shall provide in writing reasons why the proposed individual is not acceptable and

suggest or request an alternate designation. Ifthe Parties cannot agree on a qualified EEO

Officer, the matter shall, be submitted to the Court for resolution.
I
6. The EEO Officer designated pursuant to Paragraph 4, above, must be available to receive

co~plaints of employment discrimination and/or retaliation at various times ofthe day and by

various methods of communication. The Parties acknowledge Ohio Public Records Law, R.C.

§149.43. Nonetheless, the complaint process established by this Consent Decree is subject to the

provisions ofthis Consent Decree and the confidentiality of any complaint made to the EEO

Officer, and any report and/or recommendations by the EEO Officer, shall be maintained

confidential to the maximum extent possible.

7. · Within ten (1 0) calendar days from the date upon which Woodmere implements the

written policies and procedures set forth in Paragraph 4, above, Woodmere shall distribute copies

of such policies and procedures to all of its employees, supervisors and agents. Each individual

5

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 6 of 12. PageID #: 964 .Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 .Page 6 of 14
who receives a copy shall sign an acknowledgment that it has been received and read. The signed acknowledgment by e~h employee shall be placed in the employee's personnel file, and the signed acknowledgment by each supervisor also shall be maintained by the EEO Officer. 8. Within ten (1 0) calendar days from the date upon which Woodmere implements the written policies and procedures set forth in Paragraph 4, above, Woodmere shall publicize such policies and procedures by, inter alia, posting them in all buildings and facilities used for posting· equal employment opportunity information, by hand-delivering them or by emailing them to all employees, and by posting them on any internet or intranet website used for posting notices or policy changes for or concerning Woodmere. 9. Woodmere shall ensure that each new employee or supervisor receives a copy ofthe written policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Paragraph 4, above, at the time ofthe new employee's hire or at the time ofthe supervisor's election or appointment. Each new Woodmere employee or supervisor shall sign an acknowledgment that she or he has read and understands such policies. The signed acknowl~dgment by a new employee shall be placed in the ·employee's personnel file, and the signed acknowledgment by a new supervisor also shall be maintained by the EEO Officer. V. TRAINING 10. Within one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days from the date of entry ofthis Decree, Woodmere shall provide live mandatory ~aining regarding Title VTI' s prohibitions against ·discrimination based on race and retaliation to all employees, superv~sors, Village Council members and the Mayor. Such training shall be conducted by a qualified individual or company, and shall specifically include discussion ofthe written policies and procedures maintained by Woodmere pursuant to Paragraph 4, above.
6

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 7 of 12. PageID #: 965 .Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 7 of 14
11. Within sixty (60) calendar days prior to the commencement of such training (within 180 days ofthe entry of the Decree), Woodmere shall select, with the concurrence of the United States, a qualified individual or group of individuals to conduct the training required by Paragraph 10, above. The United States agrees and stipulates that an EEOC training seminar would satisfy the foregoing requirement provided such training seminar specifically includes discussion ofthe written policies and procedures maintained by Woodmere pursuant to Paragraph 4, above and any Woodmere employee or official who chooses to attend such program does not need to seek prior approval from the United States. For training other than that provided by the EEOC, if Woodmere and the United States cannot reach.agreement as to the suitability ofthe individual or group of individuals selected by Woodmere to conduct the training, ei~er party may move the Court for a resolution of the issue as provided for in Paragraph 17, below. 12. Unless Woodmere officials and employees identified in Paragraph 10 attend an ~EOC training seminar as outlined in Paragraph 11, for any other training program attended, within thirty (30) calendar days following the completion ofthe training required by Paragraph 10, above, Woodmere shall make available to the United States copies of all training materials used. For training attended pursuant to this Decree, written .attendance records shall be provided to the United States reflecting that the training has been completed, and that all individuals required by Paragraph 10, above, to attend such training in fact did so. , VI. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF FOR MENGAY and ELLIS 13. Without admitting the allegations as set forth in the Complaint, and in settlement of the claims ofthe United States, Woodmere shall:
7

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 8 of 12. PageID #: 966 .Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN · Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 8 of 14
(a) within 14 days from the date of entry ofthis Decree by the Court, pay Mengay $125,000.00, from any available source whether Woodmere funds or third party sources, to satisfy all ofher claims for relief, monetary and non-monetary, legal and equitable, which includes her attorney's fees and costs. Specifid,~matters pertaining to the receipt and distribution ofthe monetary relief will be resolved in a separate agreement betw~en Mengay and Woodmere. Photocopies of check(s) evidencing tlie payment ofthe monetary award to Mengay, along with proofof delivery to Mengay, must be sent to the United States within 21 days of the date of entry ofthis Decree by the Court;
(b) within 14 days from the date of entry of this Decree .by the Court, pay Ellis a monetary sum, from any available source whether Woodmere funds or third party sources, to satisfy all his claims for relief, monetary and non-monetary, legal and equitable, which includes his attorney's fees and costs. Specific matters pertaining to the receipt and distribution ofthe monetary relief will be resolved in a separate agreement between Ellis and Woodmere. P~otocopies of check(s) evidencing the payment ofthe monetary award to Ellis, along with proof of delivery to Ellis, must be sent to the United States within 21 days of the date of entry ofthis Decree by the Court;
(c) re-employ Mengay as a full time regular police officer, with a pay rate commensurate with what she should be earning had she remained continuously
employed by Woodmere, with continuing seniority as if she had not had a break in
service. The specific terms and conditions of Mengay's reinstatement and ~ontinued employment with Woodmere, and any back contributions and credits to
8

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 9 of 12. PageID #: 967 .Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 9 of 14
her pension and other benefit plans, is resolved in a separate agreement between Mengay and Woodmere; (d) not offer Ellis reinstatement inasmuch as Ellis does not desire reinstatement to his employment as a police officer in Woodmere; · (e) other than validly issued discipline that has not been disputed as allegedly discriminatory in this lawsuit, remove from Mengay's personnel file any negative disciplinary information including, but not limited to, verbal reprimands, written reprimands, suspensions, terminations, etc., and in consideration ofEllis submitting a letter ofresignation to Woodmere, remove any reference to the reason for Ellis' departure from Woodmere; and (f) provide a neutral job reference to any third parties regarding Mengay and Ellis. TheZmatter and nature of the job references will be resolved in separate agreements between Mengay and Woodmere and between Ellis and Woodmere. VII. RECORD RETENTION ANQ COMPLIANCE MONITORING 14. Woodmere shall retain the following records during the term ofthis Decree or for the period of time required by the Ohio public records law or applicable federal record retention requirements, whichever is longer: (a) the provisions and effe~tive date of all written policies ~d procedures implemented pursuant to Paragrap~ 4, above; (b) all posted notices and posters displayed in its work areas intended to convey information regarding the prohibition of employment discrimination in the workplace, as set forth in Paragraph 4, above, and the dates when such policies and procedures are posted on Woodmere's internet or intranet website;
9

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 10 of 12. PageID #: 968 Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 . Filed 08/12/2008 Page 10 of 14

(c) all documents that come into its possession relating to written or oral complaints

of employment discrimination against Woodmere on the basis ofrace or

retaliation, from any individual, including documents relating to. Woodmere's

investigation and resolution of any such complaints; and

(d) all documents referencing or referring to any individual employee or supervisor,

in a location where it can be easily located and retrieved based on the employee's

or supervisor's name.

I.

15. · The United States shall have the right to review compliance with this Decree at any time,

I

and shall have the right to inspect and copy any documents it deems necessary to monitor

Woodmere's compliance with this Decree, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Woodmere,

without further order of this Court.

16. Woodmere shall report to the United States any complaint of discrimination on the basis

ofrace or retaliation made by any individual pursuant to Woodmere's written policies and

procedures referenced in Paragraph 4, _above, within thirty (30) days ofreceiving noti.ce of such

complaint. This includes any complaint made or referred to the EEO Officer, the Mayor, the

Village Co~cil, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission or any other state or local agency charged with enforcement of anti-discrimination

laws pertaining to employment. .

VID. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

17~ The Parties shall attempt to resolve informally any dispute that may arise under this

Decree. Ifthe Parties are unable to resolve the dispute expeditiously, any party may move the

Court for a resolution of the issue.

10

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 11 of 12. PageID #: 969 Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 11 of 14

IX. GENERAL PROVISIONS

18. The Parties shall bear their own costs in this action, including attorneys' fees, incurred by.

them until the entry ofthis Decree by the Court. However, the Parties shall retain the right to

seek costs for any matter that, in the future, may arise under this Decree and require resolution by

the Court.

·· 19. · ·All documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the United States shall be

sent by overnight mail to the attention of:

Chief, Employment Litigation Section U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 601 D Street, N.W., PHB Room 4040 W~hington, D.C. 20004 (202) 514-3831 (202) 514-1005 (fax)

20. All documents required to be delivered under this Decree to Mengay and/or Ellis shall be

sent to the attention of:

·

Avery S. Friedman, Esq.

I.

701 The City Club Building

I '

850 Euclid Ave.

Cleveland, OH 44114-3358

(216) 621-9282

(216) 621-9283 (fax)

21. All documents required to be delivered under this Decree to Woodmere shall be sent to

the attention 'of:

J

Janet R. Beck, Law Director 7650 ChippewaRd, Suite 308 Brecksville, Ohio 44141 (440) 546-1404 . (440) 546-1406 (fax)

X. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

22. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Decree for the purpose·of resolving any .

disputes or entering any orders that may be necessary to implement the relief provided in the

11

Case: 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Doc #: 73 Filed: 08/14/08 12 of 12. PageID #: 970 .Case 1:07-cv-01541-DCN Document 71-2 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 12 of 14

Decree. At the end of three (3) years from the date of entry of this Decree, this Decree shaU be

dissolved and this action shall be dismissed without further order ofthe Court.

13-IJ IT is so ORDERED, this

day of August, 2008.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-1541 As of: 07/21/2014 11:12 AM EDT 1 of 8
Cat03,McHargh,Termed
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−01541−DCN

United States of America v. Village of Woodmere, Ohio Assigned to: Judge Donald C. Nugent Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Date Terminated: 08/14/2008 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Rachel R. Hranitzky U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights Employment Litigation Section PHB, Room 4030 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−1642 Fax: 202−514−1005 Email: rachel.hranitzky@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jodi B. Danis U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−307−5768 Fax: 202−514−1005 Email: jodi.danis@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristofor J. Hammond U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−353−3011 Fax: 202−353−8961 Email: kristofor.hammond@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/10/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia W. Johnson Office of the U.S. Attorney − Cleveland Northern District of Ohio Ste. 400 801 Superior Avenue, W Cleveland, OH 44113 216−622−3670 Fax: 216−522−4982 Email: marcia.johnson@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

Robert L. Galbreath U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−353−9731 Fax: 202−514−1005

Case: 1:07-cv-1541 As of: 07/21/2014 11:12 AM EDT 2 of 8

Email: robert.galbreath@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William B. Fenton U.S. Department of Justice − Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−3168 Fax: 202−514−1005 Email: william.b.fenton@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/04/2008

Plaintiff/Intervenor Amy Mengay

represented by Avery S. Friedman Friedman & Associates 701 City Club Bldg. 850 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 216−621−9282 Fax: 216−621−9283 Email: averyfriedman@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff/Intervenor Timothy J Ellis

represented by Avery S. Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Village of Woodmere, Ohio
3rd Party Plaintiff Lamont Lockhart

represented by John D. Latchney O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora − SV 5455 Detroit Road Sheffield Village, OH 44054 440−930−4001 Fax: 440−934−7205 Email: jlatchney@omdplaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jaime M. Bouvier Giffen & Kaminski Ste. 1600 1300 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114 216−621−5161 Fax: 216−621−2399 Email: jbouvier@thinkgk.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Subodh Chandra Chandra Law Firm Ste. 400 1265 West Sixth Street Cleveland, OH 44113 216−578−1700 Fax: 216−578−1800 Email: Subodh.Chandra@chandralaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-1541 As of: 07/21/2014 11:12 AM EDT 3 of 8

Date Filed 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/06/2007 06/08/2007 06/26/2007 07/05/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007
07/25/2007
08/23/2007
08/24/2007 08/24/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 10/10/2007

# Docket Text
1 Complaint against Village of Woodmere, Ohio. Filed by United States of America. No summons issued. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(C,BA) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge McHargh. (C,BA) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
Service by Clerk by certified mail. Summons and Complaint addressed to Village of Woodmere, Ohio placed in U.S. Mail. (C,BA) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
2 Praecipe for the issuance of summons and Clerk certified mail service on Village of Woodmere, Ohio filed by United States of America. (Certified mail envelope mailed by Clerk on 6/5/07) (C,B) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
3 Attorney Appearance and Designation of Lead Counsel by Kristofor J. Hammond filed by on behalf of United States of America. (Hammond, Kristofor) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
4 Return of Service Executed upon Yolanda Broadie, Mayor by certified mail sent by Clerk's Office on 6/6/07 served for the United States of America (C,B) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
5 Answer to Complaint with Jury Demand (Related Doc # 1 ) filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
6 Motion to intervene as a party filed by Amy Mengay. Related document(s) 1 . (Attachments: # 1 Complaint)(Friedman, Avery) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
7 Motion to intervene as a party filed by Timothy J Ellis. Related document(s) 1 . (Attachments: # 1 Complaint)(Friedman, Avery) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
8 Case Management Conference Scheduling Notice/Order with case management conference to be held on 8/22/2007 at 10:00 AM in Chambers 15A before Judge Hon. Donald C. Nugent. Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 7/9/07.(C,B) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
9 Joint Report of Parties' Planning Meeting held on July 24, 2007. Parties do not consent to this case being assigned to the magistrate judge. Filed by Amy Mengay, United States of America, Timothy J Ellis, Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Hammond, Kristofor) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
10 Minutes of proceedings of Case Management Conference held before Judge Donald C. Nugent. The case is assigned to the Standard track. Discovery cut off date is February 1, 2008 and motion cut off date to be determined. Judge Donald C. Nugent (R,JM) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
11 Marginal Order granting Motion to intervene as a party. (Related Doc # 6 ). Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent(R,JM) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
12 Marginal Order granting Motion to intervene as a party. (Related Doc # 7 ) Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent(R,JM) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
13 Answer to Complaint of Timothy J. Ellis filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. Related document(s) 7 . (Latchney, John) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
14 Answer to Complaint of Amy Mengay filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. Related document(s) 6 . (Latchney, John) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
Notice (Non−document) of Status Conference set for 11/12/2007 09:00 AM in Chambers 15A before Hon. Donald C. Nugent. (R,JM) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
Notice of RE−SCHEDULED Status Conference set for 11/13/2007 09:00 AM in Chambers 15A before Hon. Donald C. Nugent. (R,JM) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
15 Attorney Appearance by Robert L. Galbreath filed by on behalf of United States of America. (Galbreath, Robert) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-1541 As of: 07/21/2014 11:12 AM EDT 4 of 8

11/13/2007 11/30/2007 12/17/2007 12/18/2007 12/19/2007 12/20/2007 12/28/2007
01/02/2008
01/02/2008 01/31/2008
02/29/2008
02/29/2008 03/03/2008 03/04/2008

16 Minutes of proceedings.Status Conference held on 11/13/07, ( Status Conference set for 1/31/2008 09:00 AM in Chambers 15A before Judge Donald C. Nugent., Discovery is ongoing, Dispositive Motions due by 3/3/2008, opposition due 4/3/08, and reply due 4/17/08.) before Judge Donald C. Nugent (C,B) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
17 Motion to compel discovery filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits A−K)(Hammond, Kristofor) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
18 Opposition to 17 Motion to compel discovery filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
19 Notice of Service of Documents in Response to Plaintiff United States' Requests for Production of Documents filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
20 Notice of Service of Documents in Response to Plaintiff United States' Requests for Production of Documents Nos 15 and 29 filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
21 Notice of Service of Supplemental Response to Request for Production No. 29 (Resumes) filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
22 Joint Motion for extension of February 1, 2008 Discovery Completion until April 1, 2008 filed by Amy Mengay, Timothy J Ellis, Plaintiff United States of America, Defendant Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion to Extend Time for Discovery)(Hammond, Kristofor) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
23 Marginal Entry Order granting United States of America's Motion to compel production of documents. The Court is aware that Defendant has already complied with certain requests contained in this motion and that Defendant will make a diligent effort to fully respond as it is able. (Related Doc # 17 ). Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 12/14/2007.(B,B) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
24 Marginal Entry Order granting the Joint Motion to Extend time for discovery. Discovery is extended to 4/1/2008. Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 12/31/2007.(Related doc 22 )(B,B) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
25 Minutes of proceedings. Status Conference held on 1/31/08, Discovery due by 4/1/2008; Dispositive Motions due by 4/15/2008 and response is due 5/15/08; reply, if any, due 5/25/08. There is a final status conference set for 5/28/2008 at 9:00 AM in Chambers 15A before Judge Donald C. Nugent. (C,B) Modified docket text on 2/1/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 01/31/2008)
26 Notice of Service of Plaintiff Amy Mengay's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendants The Village of Woodmere, Yolanda Broadie, Gerald Carrier, Joyce Holbert, James Jordan, Carolyn Patrick and Shelley Ross filed by Amy Mengay. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Service to Broadie, # 2 Notice of Service to Carrier, # 3 Notice of Service to Holbert, # 4 Notice of Service to Jordan, # 5 Notice of Service to Patrick, # 6 Notice of Service to Ross)(Friedman, Avery) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
27 Response to Motion to Consolidate filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Kollin Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B − Motion to Consolidate, # 3 Exhibit C − Kollin Memorandum in Support of Motion to Consolidate)(Hammond, Kristofor) Modified docket text on 3/3/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 02/29/2008)
28 Joint Motion for an Increase in the Number of Depositions, with attached memorandum in support, filed by Amy Mengay, Timothy J Ellis, Plaintiff United States of America. (Hammond, Kristofor) Modified docket text on 3/5/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 03/03/2008)
29 Attorney Appearance and Substitution by Jodi B. Danis filed by on behalf of United States of America. (Danis, Jodi) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-1541 As of: 07/21/2014 11:12 AM EDT 5 of 8

03/07/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/28/2008 03/28/2008 03/28/2008
03/31/2008 03/31/2008 04/01/2008
04/04/2008 04/05/2008 04/08/2008
04/18/2008

30 Joint Motion for protective order Sequestering Deposition Witnesses filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−E to Joint Motion)(Danis, Jodi) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
31 Motion for protective order filed by Defendant Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
Order (non−document) denying Plaintiff's Motion for protective order (Related Doc # 30 ) Entered on behalf of Judge Donald C. Nugent on 3/10/08 (R,JM) Modified docket text on 3/11/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 03/10/2008)
32 Minutes of proceedings.Discovery Hearing held on 3/10/08 before Judge Donald C. Nugent (Court Reporter Kim Giel.) (C,B) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
33 Motion for extension of time until Friday, April 4, 2008 to respond or otherwise object to Plaintiff United States of America's First Set of Requests for Admission, Second Set of Interrogatories, and Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents filed by Defendant Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
34 Response to 33 Motion for extension of time until Friday, April 4, 2008 to respond or otherwise object to Plaintiff United States of America's First Set of Requests for Admission, Second Set of Interrogatories, and Fourth Set of Requests for Production of filed by United States of America. (Galbreath, Robert) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
35 Reply to response to 33 Motion for extension of time until Friday, April 4, 2008 to respond or otherwise object to Plaintiff United States of America's First Set of Requests for Admission, Second Set of Interrogatories, and Fourth Set of Requests for Production of filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix RFAs, # 2 Appendix RFPDs, # 3 Appendix 2d Set of Interrogs)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
36 Notice of Service of Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Mengay's First Request for Production of Documents filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
37 Notice of Service of Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Mengay's First Request for Production of Documents filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document]. The parties contacted Magistrate Judge McHargh's chambers regarding a dispute that arrose at depositions that were being held on 4/1/08. In attendance were: Attorney Jodi Danis for the United States; Attorney Subodh Chandra for Lamont Lockart; Attorney John Latchney for Village of Woodmere and Attorney Avery Friedman for plaintiffs' Amy Mengay and Tim Ellis. Prior to the Magistrate meeting with the parties, the parties worked out their differences. Time: 15 minutes (Court Reporter None.) Associated Cases: 1:07−cv−01541−DCN, 1:07−cv−02417−DDD, 1:08−cv−00437−DCN(R,N) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
38 Notice of Service of answers and objections to 2nd set of interrogatories and responses and objections to 4th requests for production of documents filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix)(Latchney, John) Modified docket text on 4/10/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 04/04/2008)
39 Notice of Service of Responses and Objections to Plaintiff United States Requests for Admission filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 04/05/2008)
Order (non−document) granting 33 Motion for Extension of Time 33 until Friday, April 4, 2008 to respond or otherwise object to Plaintiff United States of America's First Set of Requests for Admission, Second Set of Interrogatories, and Fourth Set of Requests for Production. Entered on behalf of Judge Donald C. Nugent on 4/8/08 (R,JM) Modified docket text on 4/10/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 04/08/2008)
40 Attorney Appearance by Rachel R. Hranitzky filed by on behalf of United States of America. (Hranitzky, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-1541 As of: 07/21/2014 11:12 AM EDT 6 of 8

04/18/2008 04/21/2008 04/21/2008 04/21/2008 04/23/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008 04/30/2008
05/06/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/13/2008 05/13/2008 05/14/2008 05/14/2008

41 Motion to compel production of documents with proposed order attached, filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Exhibit A − T)(Hammond, Kristofor) Modified docket text and attachment descriptions on 4/22/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 04/18/2008)
42 Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiff−Intervenor Amy Mengay on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
43 Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiff−Intervenor Timothy Ellis on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
44 Notice to take Deposition of Lamont Lockhart on Tuesday, May 13 through Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
45 Motion to compel discovery and for other relief filed by Plaintiff/Intervenor Amy Mengay. Related document(s) 37 , 26 , 36 . (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Friedman, Avery) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
46 Amended Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiff−Intervenor Timothy Ellis on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
47 Amended Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiff−Intervenor Amy Mengay on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
48 Notice of Service of Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Amy Mengay's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendants Gerald Carrier, James Jordan, and Carolyn Patrick filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Carrier Amended Responses and Objections to Mengay's First RFPDs, # 2 Appendix Jordan Amended Responses and Objections to Mengay's First RFPDs, # 3 Appendix Patrick Amended Responses and Objections to Mengay's First RFPDs, # 4 Appendix List of Interview Questions in Response to RFPD No. 21 to Patrick)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
49 Opposition to 41 Motion to compel discovery including psychological evaluations and extend time for oral discovery and Motion for Protective Order filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
50 Joint Motion for extension of Oral Discovery until June 30, 2008 filed by all parties. (Hranitzky, Rachel) Modified party filers on 5/14/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 05/12/2008)
51 Opposition to 45 Motion to compel discovery and for other relief filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Carrier Amended Responses to RPFDs, # 2 Appendix Jordan Amended Responses to RFPDs, # 3 Appendix Patrick Amended Responses to RFPDs)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
52 Second Amended Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiff−Intervenor Timothy Ellis on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) Modified docket text on 5/14/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 05/13/2008)
53 Second Amended Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiff−Intervenor Amy Mengay on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) Modified docket text on 5/14/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 05/13/2008)
54 Reply to response to 41 Motion to compel discovery including psychological evaluations and extend time for oral discovery and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E)(Hammond, Kristofor) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
55 Notice of Service of Answers and Objections to Plaintiff USA's 2d Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant Village of Woodmere filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Responses and Objections to Plaintiff USA's 2d Set of Requests for Admission)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-1541 As of: 07/21/2014 11:12 AM EDT 7 of 8

05/16/2008
05/27/2008 05/28/2008
05/29/2008 06/04/2008 06/05/2008 06/06/2008
06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/12/2008 06/19/2008 06/25/2008 07/07/2008 07/08/2008

56 Notice of Service of Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Amy Mengay's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Shelley B. Ross filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Amy Mengay's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Shelley B. Ross)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
Order [non−document] granting 50 the Joint Motion to Extend Time for Oral Discovery until June 30, 2008. Entered on behalf of Judge Donald C. Nugent on 5/27/08 (R,JM) Modified docket text on 5/29/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 05/27/2008)
57 Minutes of proceedings before Judge Donald C. Nugent. Status Conference held on 5/28/2008. Court has extended discovery to 6/30/2008. Responses to motions to compel are due within 7 calendar days of filing, written discovery to be disclosed to plaintiff by 6/5/2008, dispositive motions are due by 7/31/2008, responses are due by 8/30/2008, replies are due by 9/10/2008, trial is set for 8:30 a.m. on 11/17/2008 in Courtroom 15A before Judge Donald C. Nugent, trial order to issue, status conference set for 10:00 a.m. on 7/9/2008, all plaintiffs are required to submit confidential settlement proposals to defendant by 6/10/2008, defendants to respond in writing by 6/20/2008 −− all confidentially. (Court Reporter None) (B,B) Modified text on 5/28/2008 (B,B). (Entered: 05/28/2008)
58 Motion to compel discovery , Proposed Order and Certificate of Mailing filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Exhibits 1 to 17)(Hranitzky, Rachel) Modified docket text and document descriptions on 5/30/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 05/29/2008)
63 Marginal Entry Order denying as moot Motion to compel discovery (Related Doc # 45 ); At status Defendant claims to have complied, as it is able under the law; Court to continue monitoring. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 6/4/08.(C,B) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
59 Order granting Motion to compel production of documents (Related Doc # 41 ); information contained in medical and psychological records, to be kepted strictly confidential. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 6/4/08.(C,B) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
60 Notice of Service filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Amy Mengay's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Village of Woodmere, # 2 Appendix Invoices (Response to RFPD No. 19), # 3 Appendix Ad (Response to RFPD No. 20))(Latchney, John) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
61 Notice of Service filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Amy Mengay's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Joyce Holbert)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
62 Notice of Service filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Answer to Plaintiff United States of America's Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendant)(Latchney, John) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
64 Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiff Lamont Lockhart on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. filed by all defendants. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
Order [non−document] granting Motion to compel entry and inspection of premises (Related Doc # 58 ). Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 6/20/08 (R,JM) Modified docket text on 6/24/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 06/19/2008)
65 Notice to take Deposition of Plaintiff−Intervenor Amy Mengay on Friday, June 27, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. filed by Village of Woodmere, Ohio. (Latchney, John) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
66 Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel filed by United States of America. (Hammond, Kristofor) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
67 Civil Jury Trial Order with Jury Trial set for 11/17/2008 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 15A before Judge Donald C. Nugent. (R,JM) Modified docket text on 7/10/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 07/08/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-1541 As of: 07/21/2014 11:12 AM EDT 8 of 8

07/09/2008 07/24/2008
08/07/2008 08/12/2008 08/13/2008 08/14/2008

68 Minutes of proceedings before Judge Donald C. Nugent.Status Conference held on 7/9/08, ( Status Conference set for 7/23/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 15A before Judge Donald C. Nugent.) (Court Reporter None.) (E,P) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
69 Minutes of proceedings before Judge Donald C. Nugent of Status Conference held and all counsel participating. Council meets 8/6/08 and Mayor to sign Consent Decree for Court approval. A Status Conference set for 8/7/2008 11:00 AM in to be held telephonically before Judge Donald C. Nugent. Court to sign Consent Decree. (R,JM) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
70 Minutes of proceedings before Judge Donald C. Nugent.Status Conference held on 8/7/08 ( Status Conference set for 8/13/2008 at 09:00 AM to be held telephonically before Judge Donald C. Nugent.) Related document(s) 69 . (C,B) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
71 Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree filed by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Consent Decree)(Hranitzky, Rachel) Modified party filers on 8/13/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 08/12/2008)
72 Marginal Entry Order granting Joint Motion to Enter Consent Decree (Related Doc # 71 )Judge Donald C. Nugent(R,JM) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
73 Consent Decree resolving case without an adjudication or finding on the merits, parties to bear their own costs, with the Court retaining jurisdiction over the Decree for their purpose resolving disputes or entering any orders that may be necessary to implement the relief provided in the Decree; at the end of 3 years from the date of the entry of this decree, this decree shall be dissolved and this action shall be dismissed without further order of the Court. Related documents # 71 , 72 . Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 8/13/08. (C,B) Modified docket text on 8/18/2008 (R,N). (Entered: 08/14/2008)