Don S. Willner, OSB 521 14

Don S. Willner & Associates, P.C.

1415 The American Bank Building

621 S.W. Morrison

Portland, OR 97205

Telephone: 503-228-4000

Facsimile: 503-273-8842

E-mail:

donswillner~,aol.com

Mary Ellen Page Farr, OSB 82253

0324 S.W. Abernethy St.

Portland, Oregon 97239

Telephone: 503-224-9133

Facsimile: 503-827-5060

E-mail:

mefarrCdqwest.net

David D. Park, OSB 80335

Elliott & Park

0324 S.W. Abernethy St.

Portland, Oregon 97239

Telephone: 503-227-1690

Facsimile: 503-274-8384

E-mail:

dave@,elliott-park.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KAREN SHARR, MARY COCO,

)

DANA CURRY, ROBERT HEIN,

1

SHEENA REIS, GLORIA AGUIRRE, )

HECTOR AGUIRRE, JENNIFER

1

ANDERSON, AMIE BALEDGE,

JEFF BATEMAN, GEORGE BECK,

HANNAH BECK, EMMA BRADFORD, )

DON BUELL, RUTH CONNER,

)

SHANNON COOPER, DOMINIC

DAMIANI, WILLIAM DAMRON,

NATHAN DECEASER, JUDITH

1

DETMER, GAIL DIXON, RUSSELL 1

DOOLEY, KAREN DUTTER, USAR )

EINERT, SANDRA ESPINOZA,

1

LEROY FICH, AMANDA FLEMING, )

MELINDA GAMMAGE, LEAH GARCIA,)

IRENA GAWLOWICZ, NIKKI GOON, )

VELMA GUNN, CONCHITA

HADDENHAM, GERALD

HANDEGARD, RACHEL HAYES,

1

MARY ANN HERNANDEZ, JOSEPHINE)

Case No. 3-02-01513 JO JUDGMENT

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

HILL, MYRNA HIPP, TROY JONES, )

SHARON JOSLIN, ROGER KARR,

KRYSTYNA KORFANTY, BARBARA )

KLOULECHAD, KAREN LETCHER, )

BARBARA ANN LUGO, FAITH

1

MALCOLM, JOSHUA MEISENHEIMER, )

DENNIS MINZGHOR, JANETTE

MOLDENHAUER, LINDA OCAMPO, )

GHEORGHE ONESCU, MARY OTNES, )

JOHN PRIDEMORE, TERRY PULLEN, )

JENINA RAMOS, ROBERTA

1

RYLANDER, REMY SCOTT, BELEM )

SHANKLE, TRISH STITH, JANISE)

STOLTZ, STANLEY STRONG, ROBERT )

TAPPERT, IVANA TARABOCHIA,

)

DIANNA THORKILDSON, DIANA

1

WADLEY, NATALIA ZHIKHAREVA, )

Plaintiffs,

v.

NCS PEARSON, INC.,

Defendant.

This matter came on for trial beginning on April 10,2006, and concluding on April 19,2006, before the Court and a jury, the Honorable Robert E. Jones, United States District Court Judge, presiding, as to plaintiffs Karen Sharr, Mary Coco, Hector Aguirre, Emma Bradford, William Damron, Judith Detmer, Gail Dixon, Russell Dooley, Karen Dutter, Sandra Espinoza, Leroy Fich, Melinda Gammage, Josephine Hill, Sharon J o s h , Roger Karr, Barbara Ann Lugo, Faith Malcolm, Linda Ocampo, John Pridemore, Terry Pullen, Stanley Strong, Robbert Tappert, and Diana Wadley. The issues were duly tried and the jury having duly rendered its verdict,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows as to those plaintiffs: 1. That plaintiff Hector Aguirre recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,262.68, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of'entry of this Judgment,

Page 2 - JUDGMENT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

2. That plaintiff Emma Bradford recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $24,189.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
3. That plaintiff Mary Coco recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $24,462.28, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
4. That plaintiff William Damron recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
5. That plaintiff Gail Dixon recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
6. That plaintiff Russell Dooley recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $21,336.84, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
7. That plaintiff Karen Dutter recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $24,158.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
8. That plaintiff Sandra Espinoza recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $22,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
9. That plaintiff Leroy Fich recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $20,566.58, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment; 1/11 I///
Page 3 - JUDGMENT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

10. That plaintiff Melinda Garnmage recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $20,254.80, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
11. That plaintiff Josephine Hill recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $35,041.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
12. That plaintiff Sharon Joslin recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
13. That plaintiff Roger Karr recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
14. That plaintiff Barbara Ann Lugo recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
15. That plaintiff Faith Malcolm recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $14,568.55, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
16. That plaintiff Linda Ocampo recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
17. That plaintiff John Pridemore recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of'entry of this Judgment; ///I //I/
Page 4 - JUDGMENT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

18. That plaintiff Terry Pullen recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $32,726.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
19. That plaintiff Karen Sharr recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
20. That plaintiff Stanley Strong recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
21. That plaintiff Robert Tappert recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $25,534.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment;
22. That plaintiff Diana Wadley recover of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., the sum of $36,347.00, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent as provided by law from the date of entry of this Judgment; and
23. That plaintiff Judith Detmer take nothing, and that the action be dismissed as to Judith Detmer, on the merits.
I1 This matter also came before the Court on the Motions for Summary Judgment of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc. On March 28, 2006, the Court entered an Order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., dismissing all of the claims of the following plaintiffs: Dana Curry, Robert Hein, Sheena Reis, Gloria Aguirre, Jennifer Anderson, Jeff Bateman, George Beck, Hannah Beck, Don Buell, Ruth Comer, Shannon Cooper, Dominic Damiani, Usar Einert, Amanda Fleming, Leah Garcia, Irena Gawlowicz, Nikki Goon, Velma Gunn, Conchita Haddenham, Cierald Handegard, Rachel Hayes, Krystyna Korfanty, Karen Letcher, Joshua Meisenheimer, Dennis Minzghor. Gheorghe Onescu, Mary Otnes, Jenina Ramos, Roberta Rylander, Belem Shankle, Trish Stith, .[anise
Page 5 - JUDGMENT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

Stoltz, Ivana Tarabochia, Dianna Thorkildson, and Natalia Zhikareva. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that those plaintiffs shall take nothing, and the
action is dismissed as to them on the merits. I11
On December 8,2004, the Court entered an Order of Involuntary Dismissal as to plaintiffs Amie Baledge, Nathan DeCeaser, Myrna Hipp, Troy Jones, Barbara Kloulechad, Janette Moldenhauer, and Remy Scott, and on January 25,2006, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal as to plaintiff Mary Ann Hernandez.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that those plaintiffs shall take nothing, and the action is dismissed as to them with prejudice.
IV No party is awarded costs or attorney fees. DATED at Portland, Oregon, this H d a y of May, 2006.
-
The Hdorabl'e Robert E. Jones
[,.,/ Unite Stat District Court Judge
Page 6 - JUDGMENT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

 
 Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KAREN SHARR; ET AL.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

)

being sued as NORMAN MINETA, Secretary of )

the United States Department of Transportation and )

Administrator of the Transportation Security )

Administration (TSA), in his official capacity; )

ET AL.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil No. 02-1513-JO OPINION AND ORDER

Don S. Willner WILLNER & HOOTON, LLP 111 S.W. Naito Parkway, Suite 303 Portland, OR 97204-3500

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 2 of 14

John G. Azar John G. Knepper Marsha S. Edney U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Room 7216 Washington, D.C. 20530
Ronald K. Silver Assistant United States Attorney, District of Oregon UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204
Courtney C. Dippel Louis A. Santiago HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97210
Attorneys for Defendants
This action arises out of the post-September 11, 2001, nationwide federalization of airport
security. Plaintiffs, six unsuccessful applicants for federal security screener positions at Portland
International Airport ("PDX"), bring this action against the Transportation Security Administration
("TSA"), through its Administrator and the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, Norman
Mineta, and TSA's contractor, NCS Pearson, Inc., alleging claims for discrimination in the application
and hiring process.
In their class action complaint,1 plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and
unspecified money damages against both defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as

1

Plaintiffs have represented that they will not pursue class certification. Currently there

are only six named plaintiffs.

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 3 of 14
amended (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq)(race, gender, and national origin), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 623 et seq (age), the Aviation and Transportation Security Act ("ATSA"), Pub.L. 107-71, Sec. 111(f)(2)(veterans preference), and under 28 C.F.R. § 50.14 (Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures). See Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"), ¶¶ 2427.
Plaintiffs filed this action on November 7, 2002, and immediately sought a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs requested, among other things, an order requiring immediate retesting of all class members under court supervision and the immediate hiring of all those who passed the test.
On January 9, 2003, the court held a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, limited to plaintiffs' prima facie case. Shortly before the hearing, in evident response to defendants' motions to dismiss,2 plaintiffs filed a "supplemental complaint," which added a single claim of employment discrimination against defendant NCS Pearson under ORS 659A.030.
At the hearing, I heard the parties' arguments and the testimony of several witnesses representing the various plaintiff subclasses. While the evidence tended to show that defendants' testing and hiring procedures may have unfairly disadvantaged the plaintiffs, the evidence fell far short of demonstrating unlawful discrimination sufficient to sustain the requested injunction. More critically, the record established - and plaintiffs conceded - that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the administrative

2

Defendants both moved to dismiss the complaint; those motions are in abeyance

pending complete resolution of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 4 of 14

prerequisites to their Title VII and ADEA claims.3 Those claims are, therefore, not properly before the court. Based on the above reasons, I denied the motion for preliminary injunction.
Because plaintiffs' state law claim as a basis for the preliminary injunction had not been briefed by the time of the hearing, I took that claim under advisement pending further briefing. The parties have now fully briefed the state law claim. Having considered the parties' arguments and the evidence of record, I deny plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction based on state law.
LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The background of the present litigation is largely undisputed. On September 11, 2001, foreign terrorists armed with box-cutters and knives hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed them, full of passengers and crew members, into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside. On November 19, 2001, in response to the airport security breakdown that allowed the hijackings and to ensure the "safety and security of the civil air transport system,"4 Congress enacted the Aviation Transportation Security Act ("ATSA"), Pub.L. 107-71. The ATSA made airport security a direct federal responsibility, created the TSA, and charged the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with day-to-day federal security screening operations at commercial airports nationwide. The ATSA mandated that TSA develop standards for the hiring and training of security screening personnel consistent with legislative requirements of the Act. The ATSA also directed TSA to hire, train, and deploy, by November 19, 2002, a sufficient number of

3

Plaintiffs' veterans preference claim under section 111(f)(2) of the ATSA and their

fairness claim under 28 C.F.R. § 50.14 lack substantive merit and will not be discussed.

4

Aviation and Transportation Security Act, H.R. Rep. 107-296 at 53 (2001).

4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 5 of 14

federal security screeners to conduct screening of all passengers and property at the nation's commercial airports.
To assist in the evaluation and hiring of the tens of thousands of screeners required under the ATSA, TSA solicited bids from contractors to support TSA in the development, implementation, and execution of a qualification, assessment, staffing, and placement system, and to provide on-going human resource services for airport security screeners, law enforcement officers, and other TSA personnel in compliance with federal law.
NCS Pearson, a global provider of applications, technologies, and services to education, government, and business clients, was the successful bidder. TSA awarded the contract to NCS Pearson effective February 25, 2002. The contract was for a fixed period of time and required NCS Pearson to complete its performance by December 31, 2002.5
Among its many tasks under the TSA contract, NCS Pearson managed TSA job postings and candidate intake, provided assessment center facilities, equipment and staff, scheduled candidate assessments, conducted required tests and interviews, identified qualified candidates, and aided in the award of TSA job offers. Declaration of Stephen Maier ("Maier Decl."), ¶ 10. TSA, through NCS Pearson, recruited applicants for three security positions: transportation security screener, lead transportation security screener, and supervisory transportation screener. NCS Pearson recruited "incumbent screeners," i.e., private sector screeners who worked for the airlines or for security companies hired by the airlines, like plaintiffs in this case, along with new applicants.

5

The contract was not extended and expired on December 31, 2002. Declaration of

Stephen Maier, ¶ 4.

5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 6 of 14
According to NCS Pearson, the TSA testing process was the same for all applicants nationwide. Incumbent screeners were given the same tests as new applicants, but they were tested after the new applicants were tested. The parties agree that incumbent screeners who passed the tests were guaranteed federal screener positions with TSA.
The PDX assessment center was open from early September 2002, through October 18, 2002. See Declaration of Thomas Joyce ("Joyce Decl."), ¶ 3.6 Candidates were notified in advance of their scheduled date for testing. At the assessment center, applicants proceeded through a preestablished series of tests. Applicants were tested for the highest level position for which they had applied and were qualified for, as well as all lower positions. The testing included physical standards tests, visual acuity and color perception tests, aural acuity tests, medical and other examinations, and English proficiency tests, with all computer tests scored remotely. Maier Decl., ¶ 12. If an applicant failed any test in the series, the applicant was deemed disqualified and did not proceed. If a new applicant or an incumbent applicant successfully passed the tests, the applicant was deemed qualified and eligible to serve as a federal screener. As mentioned, the incumbent PDX screeners who passed were guaranteed federal screener positions with TSA.
Before November 19, 2001, plaintiffs were employed by Huntleigh USA Corporation as private screeners at PDX. All Huntleigh employees were terminated or told they would be terminated before the transition to a federal screener workforce. Complaint, ¶¶ 9, 12. In their complaint, plaintiffs

6

Minor discrepancies between the various declarants as to the precise dates are

immaterial.

6 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 7 of 14
allege that the testing process "was designed to make it difficult for the Huntleigh screeners to pass," in that defendants:
(a) Highlight[ed] in advance names of Huntleigh screeners who were to be failed;
(b) M[ade] part of the testing process subjective; (c) [Gave] Huntleigh screeners less time to take and complete the testing process
than provided to new applicants; (d) Test[ed] Huntleigh employees for supervisor positions and fail[ed] them, even
though they had only applied for screeners positions; (e) [Told] individual Huntleigh applicants:
(1) he was too old; (2) that the assessor saw something he did not like so the applicant failed,
but applicant was not told what that was; (3) she failed because she was not born in this country and was of a
different culture; (4) he was disqualified for talking about a subject unrelated to the test; (5) asking intimidating questions which were not job related; (6) grabbing an applicant and yelling at her, and then throwing her out the
back door; (7) pulled headphones off the head of an applicant from behind;
7 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 8 of 14

(8) telling an applicant with graduate academic degrees in a foreign country that her English was not perfect; and
(9) not telling applicants why they failed. Complaint, ¶ 20.
Plaintiffs claim that new applicants had two days in which to complete the tests, but that the incumbent screeners were required to complete the tests in one day, to their detriment. NCS Pearson disputes this, stating that the national goal with respect to all testing was to have applicants complete their testing in one day, however, "some applicants were tested over a two day period due to equipment shortages and testing start times." Joyce Decl., ¶¶ 11-13. When the Portland assessment center opened in September 2002, a shortage of computers used in VUE Testing7 and fingerprint machines used in Phase II resulted in some applicants being tested over a two-day period. By September 9, 2002, as many applicants as could be tested in one day completed their testing in one day. Joyce Decl., ¶ 17.
According to plaintiffs, NCS Pearson tested 337 Huntleigh screeners. Of these, 135 men and 58 women passed; 60 men and 84 women failed. Plaintiffs assert that "[t]he profile of the typical Federal screener at PDX is now a white male under age 45." Complaint, ¶ 18. At this juncture in the litigation, it is unclear how many of those who failed the tests have joined as plaintiffs.8
DISCUSSION

7

VUE Testing, also known as Phase I, consisted of three timed tests on a computer.

Declaration of Susan Nelson, ¶ 4.

8

See footnote 1.

8 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 9 of 14
The question presently before the court is whether plaintiffs' state law employment discrimination claim against NCS Pearson supports the requested preliminary injunction. I find that it does not.
1. Standard To obtain a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs generally must satisfy one of two tests. The traditional test requires plaintiffs to show "'(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).'" Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)(citation omitted). In the alternative test, "a court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates 'either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.'" Johnson, 72 F.3d at 1430 (citations omitted; emphasis in original). The two formulations under the alternative test "represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases." A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). To the extent that plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction, that is, a requirement that NCS Pearson go beyond the status quo and take affirmative steps to retest them, the Ninth Circuit imposes a more stringent standard. See Stanley v. University of Southern California, 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994)(mandatory preliminary injunction "goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite [and] is particularly disfavored")(alteration in original). Faced with a request for a mandatory preliminary injunction, "the district court should deny such relief unless the facts and law 9 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 10 of 14
clearly favor the moving party." Stanley, 13 F.3d at 1320. This is particularly true where, as here, the requested injunction would encroach on government personnel matters. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 83-84 (1974).
Plaintiffs contend that they do not seek a mandatory injunction, merely a return to the status quo that existed before the testing. As a practical matter, because NCS Pearson's contract with TSA has expired and the situation that existed pre-testing no longer exists, plaintiffs do, in fact, seek an injunction that goes well beyond the status quo. I need not resolve this issue, however, because plaintiffs are not entitled to any form of injunctive relief under any of the above tests.
2. Plaintiffs' Claim Against NCS Pearson Plaintiffs' supplemental complaint alleges a state law employment discrimination claim under ORS 659A.030 solely against NCS Pearson. In their memorandum in support of their state law claim, plaintiffs clarify that their claim falls under ORS 659A.030(1)(e), which provides in relevant part as follows:
(1) It is an unlawful employment practice: * * *
(e) For an employment agency to classify or refer for employment, or to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual:
(A) On the basis of the individual's race, color, national origin, sex, religion, marital status or age, if the individual is 18 years of age or older[.] ORS 659A.030(1)(e). "Employment agency," for purposes of that statute, is defined as "any person undertaking to procure employees or opportunities to work." ORS 659A.001(5).
10 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 11 of 14

As a preliminary matter, I note that while plaintiffs appropriately do not include TSA as a defendant in their state law claim, in their memorandum they suggest that TSA may be liable under ORS 659A.030. Plaintiffs' Memorandum Re Oregon Civil Rights Statute, p. 3. To put the matter to rest, TSA, a federal agency, is not subject to liability under ORS 659A.030. In the context of this case, which involves federal, not state, employment, plaintiffs' remedies against the federal employer, TSA, if any, are defined by the provisions of federal law, specifically, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, and the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 633a. See Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 825-33 (1976); see also, e.g., Belhomme v. Widnall, 127 F.3d 1214, 1216 (10th Cir. 1997); Schroder v. Runyon, 1 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1279 (D.Kansas 1998)(federal employee's state law discrimination claim preempted by Title VII).
With respect to plaintiffs' state law claim against NCS Pearson, plaintiffs admit that "TSA hired NCS Pearson * * * to do a fair testing and hiring of existing Huntleigh employees and new applicants, thereby making Pearson the agent of TSA to perform a Federal function." Complaint, ¶ 10. The evidence supports that admission, establishing that NCS Pearson acted solely within the parameters of its contract with TSA and as TSA's agent. See Maier Decl., ¶¶ 15-16. TSA, not NCS Pearson, established the qualification standards for the hiring of airport screeners. Maier Decl., ¶ 14. NCS Pearson fulfilled its contract obligations, and the TSA/NCS Pearson contract expired on December 31, 2002.9 Maier Decl., ¶ 18.

9

NCS Pearson explains that in carrying out its contract obligations, NCS Pearson

received over 5.9 million inquiries, held more than 89 job fairs in 56 cities, processed over 1.4 million

completed job applications, and assessed over 430,000 prospective applicants in more than 150

(continued...)

11 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 12 of 14
Having considered the matter thoroughly, I conclude that plaintiffs' state law claim does not support the requested injunctive relief, for several reasons. First, as NCS Pearson points out, it has no authority to provide the relief plaintiffs request - immediate retesting - because it no longer has any contract relationship with TSA. Additionally, TSA, not NCS Pearson, is the federal employer. More critically, plaintiffs' evidence of unlawful discrimination is insufficient to support a preliminary injunction, even if NCS Pearson could in fact provide the requested relief.
Second, assuming without deciding that NCS Pearson may be subject to state law in its role as a federal contractor, I am not convinced that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that NCS Pearson, a contractor that performed its work under a specific federal contract, qualifies as an "employment agency" within the meaning of ORS Chapter 659A. Coupled with plaintiffs' minimal evidence of "irreparable" harm, their weak showing on the merits of their claim compels me to conclude that plaintiffs are not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
Thus, I deny plaintiffs' motion. While in my view TSA's decision to test new applicants first was illogical and inherently unfair to incumbent screeners like these plaintiffs and may have put them at a
9(...continued) assessment centers throughout the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Guam. Under the direction of TSA, NCS Pearson qualified more than 125,000 candidates as eligible, and assisted TSA in hiring a workforce of approximately 45,000 federal security screeners. See NCS Pearson's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, p. 4; see also Declaration of Elizabeth Kolmstetter, Ph.D., ¶ 23. 12 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 13 of 14
competitive disadvantage,10 I am not persuaded that the harm plaintiffs suffered was the product of unlawful discrimination, or that they have any available remedy in federal court.
I also note my concern that in the absence of any viable federal claim, this court may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action. TSA, a federal agency, is not a "citizen" of any state, and its presence as a defendant defeats diversity jurisdiction. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. United States, 999 F.2d 581, 584 (DC Cir. 1993); see Dyack v. Commonwealth of North Mariana Islands, 317 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: FED. CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2002). Moreover, because plaintiffs apparently no longer seek class action status and the case does not involve a common fund, they cannot aggregate their claims, as they appear to have done in their original class action complaint,11 to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement. See, e.g., Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1263-64 (11th Cir. 2000).
CONCLUSION Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (# 3) is DENIED. DATED this 3rd day of March, 2003.
/s/ Robert E. Jones ROBERT E. JONES
10 TSA explains this decision as necessary to ensure the presence of sufficient federal personnel to staff the checkpoints before testing of contract screeners could begin. See Declaration of Elizabeth Kolmstetter, Ph.D., ¶ 19.
11 The class action complaint alleges only that "[t]he amount in controversy against defendant Pearson exceeds $75,000 plus interest and costs." Complaint, ¶ 4. 13 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 103 Filed 03/03/03 Page 14 of 14 U.S. District Judge
14 - OPINION AND ORDER

 
 Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 229 Filed 02/14/05 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KAREN SHARR; ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. NCS PEARSON, INC.,
Defendant.

)

Civil No. 02-1513-JO

)

)

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER

)

)

)

)

David D. Park ELLIOTT & PARK 0324 S.W. Abernathy Street Portland, OR 97201-4356

Don S. Willner DON S. WILLNER & ASSOCIATES, PC 630 Sunnyside Road Trout Lake, WA 98650

Mary Ellen Page Farr 0324 S.W. Abernathy Street Portland, OR 97201-4356

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 229 Filed 02/14/05 Page 2 of 6
Carlton E. Greene John G. Knepper Marsha S. Edney John G. Azar U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division P. O. Box 883 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
Ronald K. Silver UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902
Courtney C. Dippel Louis A. Santiago HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97210
Attorneys for Defendants
JONES, Judge:
Defendant NCS Pearson ("Pearson") moves to dismiss (# 218) plaintiffs' Third
Party/Breach of Contract claim on a jurisdictional ground pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). For
the reasons stated below, I GRANT Defendant's motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
As the parties have been engaged for over two years in this matter and are familiar with
the record, I briefly restate the case background as summarized in an earlier order:
Plaintiffs in this action are former airport security screeners at Portland International Airport alleging discrimination in job testing by the federal government's human resources contractor, NCS Pearson. At summary judgment, plaintiffs' claims against the government were dismissed as well as certain claims against NCS Pearson, leaving only Title VII discrimination, ADA, and ADEA claims against NCS Pearson as an employment agency.
2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 229 Filed 02/14/05 Page 3 of 6
Order, 12/17/2004, 2. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint by adding three state claims against Pearson. I dismissed sua sponte two of those claims - defamation and intentional interference with economic relations. On plaintiffs' motion, I reinstated the intentional interference claim. Pearson now moves to dismiss the state claim for third-party beneficiary breach of contract on jurisdictional grounds.
ARGUMENTS Plaintiffs assert in their Fifth Amended Complaint that they are third-party beneficiaries to Pearson's contract with the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), Solicitation No. DTTS59-02-R-00440 ("TSA Contract"). Plaintiffs allege that the TSA Contract created a duty for Pearson to provide an incumbent preference in the screening process to plaintiffs and that Pearson failed to provide that preference through competent testing in breach of the TSA Contract. Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint, 7 (¶¶ 25-28). Pearson, in turn, argues that if plaintiffs are third-party beneficiaries then they must step into the shoes of TSA as a party to the TSA Contract and thereby become bound by its terms. A dispute clause incorporated into the TSA Contract states that "all disputes arising under or relating to this contract shall be resolved under" the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (the "CDA"), 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613, via submission of the claim to the contracting officer with appeal available to an agency board of appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. See Fed. Acq. Reg. ("FAR") 52.233-1(a); Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel, Exhibit #1, 21 (incorporating the December 1998 version of FAR 52.233-1 into the TSA Contract). Pearson asserts that the CDA as incorporated into the TSA Contract is the exclusive procedure for remedy of contractual disputes such as plaintiffs' third-party breach of contract
3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 229 Filed 02/14/05 Page 4 of 6
claim. The CDA "applies to any express or implied contract * * * entered into by an executive agency" with a contractor. 41 U.S.C. 602(a); see also 41 U.S.C. 605 (setting out the procedural rights of the contractor and executive agency). If the CDA applies to plaintiffs, then this court's jurisdiction would be lost and they would need to submit their breach of contract claim to the government contracting officer. Therefore, Pearson moves to dismiss plaintiffs' third-party breach claim from the present action in the District of Oregon for improper jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs, in turn, argue that the CDA contemplates only claims between the government and its contractor. See 41 U.S.C. 605(a) ("All claims by a contractor against the government relating to a contract shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision. All claims by the government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a decision by the contracting officer.") (emphasis added). A dispute between private parties is not within the scope of the CDA or the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims which hears claims where the federal government is a party.
STANDARD OF REVIEW A party may contest a court's jurisdiction to hear a claim by moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The non-movant has the burden to show that jurisdiction is proper. See Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). "A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual." Safe Air v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000)). For a factual attack, "the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction" by submitting evidence or affidavits with a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Id. "'Once the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss
4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 229 Filed 02/14/05 Page 5 of 6
into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court, the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.'" Id. (quoting Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003)). The court may consider the additional evidence submitted in making its decision. Id.
ANALYSIS The third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim arises by the plaintiffs standing in the place of the government to sue the contractor, Pearson. Both parties acknowledge the absence of case law concerning private party disputes of a federal contract under the CDA, except for the statutory scheme for subcontractors' claims against prime federal contractors. Thus, the case law that addresses CDA claims against or by the federal government or that discusses the statutory definition of "contractor" for jurisdictional purposes is not helpful to resolving the question of whether the CDA applies to a third-party beneficiary asserting a government contract claim against a contractor. See 41 U.S.C. 601(4) ("the term 'contractor' means a party to a Government contract other than the Government."). Based on the copy of the TSA Contract submitted with Pearson's Motion to Dismiss, I find that the CDA's Disputes clause was incorporated into the TSA Contract. In as much as plaintiffs allege that they are intended third-party beneficiaries of the TSA Contract, they are subject to the requirements binding on the contracting parties, "subject to certain public policy exceptions." Stratosphere Litig. L.L.C. v. Grand Casinos, Inc., 298 F.3d 1137, 1146 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs argue for an exception from the rule because the CDA applies to disputes involving the federal government, and not a third party dispute with a federal contractor.
5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 229 Filed 02/14/05 Page 6 of 6
However, the CDA applies all contract claims made "by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract." FAR 52.233-1(c) (definition of "claim") (emphasis added). TSA would have been required to proceed under the CDA if it had sought to compel Pearson to carry-out plaintiffs' alleged incumbent preference in the TSA Contract. Similarly, plaintiffs' contract claim - again, stepping into the shoes of the TSA as a contracting party - clearly relates to Pearson's performance under the TSA Contract. Therefore, the CDA applies to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim.
Plaintiffs' contract claim is not properly before this court under the CDA. Therefore, I GRANT Defendant's Motion To Dismiss (# 218) Plaintiffs' Breach Of Contract Claim.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2005.
/s/ Robert E. Jones ROBERT E. JONES U.S. District Judge
6 - OPINION AND ORDER

 
 Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 1 of 16

DonS. Willner, OSB 52114

DonS. Willner & Associates, P.C.

1415 The American Bank Building

621 S.W. Morrison

Portland, OR 97205

Telephone: 503-228-4000

Facsimile: 503-273-8842

E-mail:

donswillner@aol.com

Mary Ellen Page Farr, OSB 82253

0324 S.W. Abernethy St.

Portland, Oregon 97239

Telephone: 503-224-9133

Facsimile: 503-827-5060

E-mail:

mefarr@qwest.net

David D. Park, OSB 80335

Elliott & Park

0324 S.W. Abernethy St.

Portland, Oregon 97239

Telephone: 503-227-1690

Facsimile: 503-274-8384

E-mail:

dave@elliott-park.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KAREN SHARR, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
NCS PEARSON, INC., a Minnesota corporation,
Defendant.

) Case No. 3-02-01513-JO ) ) SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT ) FOR DISCRIMINATION (GENDER, AGE, ) RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN); INTENTIONAL ) INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT ) CONTRACT OR PROSPECTIVE ) ADVANTAGE)
) ) Jury Trial Requested )
)

A. JURISDICTION

1. At all times relevant to the issues of this case, plaintiffs were all residents of

Oregon or Washington.

Page 1 - SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 2 of 16
2. At all times relevant to the issues of this case, defendant NCS Pearson, Inc. was a Minnesota corporation, doing business in Oregon.
3. Defendant is an employment agency within the meaning ofthe discrimination statutes set forth herein.
4. The amount in controversy for economic and non-economic damages exceeds $75,000 plus interest and costs for each plaintiff.
5. This court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship).
6. All plaintiffs have timely filed complaints with the EEOC and received right to sue letters.
B. VENUE 7. Most of the acts complained of took place in or near the Portland International Airport (PDX) although some took place at or near other airports located in the District of Oregon. C. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Prior to October of 2002, plaintiffs were employees of Huntleigh USA Corporation (Huntleigh) screening airline passengers and luggage at Oregon airports and were not retained when airport screeners became federal employees. Screeners who were employed by Huntleigh in Oregon prior to October of 2002 are referred to in this Complaint as "the Huntleigh Screeners." The Huntleigh Screeners were experienced in the work of screening passengers and baggage and in security issues at the airports. 9. On approximately November 1, 2001, Congress passed a law creating the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the United States Department of Transportation and requiring that all airport screeners be federal employees. 10. Between November 1, 2001 and October of 2002, TSA told the Huntleigh Screeners that TSA would give the Huntleigh Screeners preference in hiring and that ifthe Page 2 - SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 3 of 16
Huntleigh Screeners passed the hiring test they would be guaranteed employment as federal screeners. TSA also assured the Huntleigh Screeners that they would have no problem passing the test given their level of experience. TSA also promised the Huntleigh Screeners that they would be given a bonus if they stayed at their posts during the changeover to federal screeners.
11. In exchange for TSA's promises alleged above, including the promise that the Huntleigh Screeners would be given preference in selection as federal screeners, plaintiffs agreed that they would not attend job fairs to find new employment and would not leave their posts at the airport for early testing by Pearson. An agreement was formed between TSA and the Huntleigh Screeners, including plaintiffs, based upon these promises.
12. Alternatively, plaintiffs had the prospective economic advantage of expected employment with TSA as federal screeners.
13. In or about 2002 TSA hired NCS Pearson, Inc. (Pearson) to do a fair testing and hiring of the Huntleigh Sreeners and new applicants, thereby making Pearson the agent of TSA to perform testing and placement of federal screeners. On information and belief, plaintiffs allege that Pearson was aware that there was an agreement between TSA and plaintiffs for plaintiffs to receive preference. On information and belief, plaintiffs further allege that providing preference to the Huntleigh Screeners was a term of the agreement between TSA and Pearson.
14. Alternatively, if Pearson did not do a fair non-discriminatory testing and hiring of existing Huntleigh screeners, it was not acting within the scope of its employment with TSA in that fair and non-discriminatory testing was a term of the agreement between TSA and Pearson.
15. Pearson did not engage in a fair screening process and instead used the testing process to disqualify plaintiffs in order to justify to TSA that Pearson had not given Page 3 - SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 4 of 16
preference to the existing screeners. Instead of honoring the agreement between TSA and the Huntleigh Screeners, and in breach of its own agreement with TSA, Pearson filled the screeners' positions with applicants other than the existing screeners before the Huntleigh Screeners, including plaintiffs, were given an opportunity to take Pearson's tests.
14. All Huntleigh screeners were terminated or told they would be terminated before the transition to federal screening occurred. Thereafter, the Huntleigh Screeners were tested, although most of the jobs were already filled.
15. Defendant discriminated against protected classes. Among the Huntleigh Screeners, the following statistics are available.
a. Gender. 129 males passed, 73 males failed, 67 females passed and 93 failed.
b. Age. The average age of those who failed was 47; precise information of the average age of those who passed is not available without discovery.
c. Race and national origin combined with gender- 2 African-American women passed and 13 failed; 3 Asian women passed and 24 failed.
16. Many plaintiffs on disability or medical hold were denied the opportunity of either being tested or fairly tested. Those screeners who were placed on medical hold were perceived to be disabled.
17. The profile of the typical federal screener at POX when the screeners were transferred to federal employee status was a white male under the age of 45.
18. TSA paid the Huntleigh Screener applicants who were hired less salary than paid to new employees.
19. The claims of discrimination of the individual plaintiffs are summarized on the chart attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Page 4 - SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 5 of 16
20. The testing process put in place by Pearson for the Huntleigh Screeners was a pretext to accomplish discrimination against protected classes and to retaliate against incumbent screeners who complained about the process. The intention or result was to make it difficult for the Huntleigh Screeners to pass, in order to avoid new applicants who had been hired having to be replaced. The techniques used to accomplish this result included:
a. Using unqualified personnel to administer the testing, many of whom were obtained from temporary employment agencies with no training to administer these tests;
b. Highlighting in advance names of the Huntleigh Screeners who were to be failed;
c. Making part of the testing process subjective; d. Giving the Huntleigh Screeners less time to take and complete the
testing process than provided to new applicants; e. Testing the Huntleigh Screeners for supervisor positions and failing
them, even though they had only applied for screeners positions; f. Telling individual Huntleigh applicants such things as:
1. that he was too old; 2. that the assessor saw something he did not like so the
applicant failed, but applicant was not told what that was; 3. that she failed because she was not born in this country and
was of a different culture; 4. he was disqualified for talking about a subject unrelated to the
test; and 5. that her English was not perfect even though the applicant had
advanced graduate degrees from a foreign country. Page 5 - SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 6 of 16

g. asking intimidating questions which were not job related;

h. grabbing an applicant and yelling at her, and then throwing her out the

back door;

i.

pulling headphones off the head of an applicant from behind; and

j.

failing and refusing to tell applicants why they failed.

21. Pearson and TSA did a massive job of public relations, telling the public that

a new elite workforce, called "the best of the best," was now on the job, and disparaging

the Huntleigh employees who were not hired. This conduct made it more difficult for

Huntleigh screeners to find new employment because of the stigma of being terminated

and then not rehired for a similar sensitive federal job, with an implication of being

incompetent, a security risk and not trustworthy, and causing each of them severe

humiliation and emotional distress.

D. DAMAGES

22. Plaintiffs have suffered economic damages in lost wages and some have

economic damages of medical and pharmacy bills. Plaintiffs have suffered non- economic

damages of emotional distress and humiliation. The exact amount of economic and non

economic damages will be set forth after investigation and discovery.

E. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

FOR THEIR FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF, the plaintiffs enumerated on Exhibit 1

hereto allege as follows:

(Discrimination)

23. The conduct of Pearson violated the employment agency sections of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1969 as amended. 42 U.S.C § 2000e-2(b); the Age Discrimination

in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 623 (b); and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. 12111 (7).

Page 6 - SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 7 of 16
24. Plaintiffs have been required to retain attorneys for the prosecution of this action and are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses under the discrimination statutes.
FOR THEIR SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF, plaintiffs allege as follows: (Intentional Interference with Contract)
25. Pearson interfered with plaintiffs' agreement with TSA in that Pearson failed to provide the required preference and then devised subjective testing as an excuse for TSA not to hire plaintiffs. Alternatively, Pearson interfered with plaintiffs' prospective advantage of employment with TSA as federal screeners.
26. Pearson used the following improper means for interfering with plaintiffs' contract or prospective advantage:
a. Pearson used subjective and unfair testing; and b. Pearson told TSA and the public that plaintiffs were not competent in
order to conceal the fact that Pearson had failed to provide fair testing and the required preferences to plaintiffs. 27. Plaintiffs have been damaged as alleged in paragraph 22 above. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for a judgment against Pearson as follows: 1. For their first and third claims, for the economic and non-economic damages for each plaintiff in amounts to be proven at trial but at any event in excess of $75,000, plus interest and costs per plaintiff; 2. For their second claim, for the damages plaintiffs have suffered as a result of Pearson's breach of its contract with TSA; 3. For their first claim, for their reasonable attorney's fees, costs and other expenses; and Ill/ Ill/ Page 7 -SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 8 of 16 4. For such other relief as the court deems equitable. DATED: February 24, 2005
~kd!tu~~·
MaryEil Page Farr, 0 8 82253
Don S. Willner, OSB 52114 David D. Park, OSB 80335
Page 8 - SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mary Ellen Page Farr, Attorney at Law 0324 S.W. Abernethy, Portland, Oregon 97239 Phone: (503)-224-9133 Fax: (503)-827-5060

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 9 of 16

First Name Last Name

Gloria

Aguirre

Hector

Aguirre

Jennifer
Jeffrey Clarence George Hanna

Anderson Bateman Beck
Beck

EmmaY.

Bradford

DonG.

Buell

Basis of Discrimination

Race

Sex

Hispanic Female X

X

National
Ori~in
X

Age

Disability Retaliation

X DOB 04-01-61

Hispanic Male X

X

Medical

i

Hold

White Female

X

White Male

Disability X

White Male

X DOB 05-18-34

Asian Female X

X

X DOB 04-19-47

Black Female X

X

Age DOB 04-22-55

White Male
--

L___ ___

-L

X DOB 11-04-56

Exhibit 1 Page 1.

First Name Last Name

Mary G.

Coco

White Female

Race

Sex

X

Ruth

Conner

Black Female X

X

Shannon

Cooper

Dana

Curry

Dominic A. Damiani

Hispanic/white X

X

Female

White Female

X

White Male

William

Damron

White Male

Judith E.

Detmer

White Female

X

Gail M.

Dixon

White Female

X

Russell R. Dooley
-- L___
Exhibit 1 Page 2.

White Male

Basis of Discrimination

National Origin

Age

Disability Retaliation

X DOB 05-18-42

X •
DOB 08-14-46

X

X

DOB 09-17-56

X

Medical

DOB 06-25-47 Hold

X

Disability X

DOB 01-27-42

X DOB 06-12-55

X

Disability

DOB 03-06-61

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 10 of 16

First Name Last Name

Karen

Dutter

White Female

Usar

Einert

Asian Female

Sandra

Espinoza

White Female

Leroy

Fich

White Male

Amanda

Fleming

Black Female

Melinda

Gammage

White Female

Leah Nicole Garcia

Irena

Gawlowicz

White Female Hispanic
White Female

Nikki

Goon

White Female

Exhibit 1 Page 3.

Race

Sex

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Basis of Discrimination

National
Ori~in

Age

Disability Retaliation

Retaliation

X

X

DOB 01-11-52

X

Medical

DOB 04-06-46 Hold

X DOB 06-23-42

X

X

DOB 08-24-44

X DOB 07-19-45

X

X

X

X

DOB 03-29-58

X

Disability

DOB 03-18-57

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 11 of 16

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 12 of 16

First Name Last Name Velma Lee Gunn

White Female

Conchita L. Haddenham Asian Female

Gerald

Handegard

Rachel Ann Hayes

White Male White Female

Race

Sex

X

X

X

Basis of Discrimination

National Origin

Age

Disability Retaliation

X

Medical

DOB 05-28-46 Hold

X

X

DOB 06-26-36

X DOB 09-06-45

Disability X

Robert J.

Hein

White Male

Maryann V. Hernandez

Asian Female

X

X

(Pacific Islander)

Josephine Hill

White Female

X

Sharon

Joslin

White Female

X

X DOB 07-15-50

X DOB 10-26-55 X DOB 10-14-46

X Disability X

Exhibit 1 Page 4.

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 13 of 16

First Name Last Name

RogerW.

Karr

White Male

Krystyna E. Korfanty

White Female

Karen

Letcher

White Female

Barbara Ann Lugo

White Female

Faith

Malcolm

White Female

Joshua Dennis

Meisenheimer White Male

Minzghor

White Male

LindaM.

Ocampo

White Female

Gheorge

Onescu

White Male

Race

Sex

X X X X

X

Basis of Discrimination

National Origin

Age

Disability Retaliation

X DOB 10-15-36

X

X

DOB 07-25-53

X

X

DOB 07-12-59

X DOB 01-03-46

X

Disability

DOB 05-07-46

Disability

X DOB 12-08-46

X

Medical X

DOB 10-04-47 Hold

X

X

X

DOB 10/25/52

Exhibit 1 Page 5.

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 14 of 16

First Name Last Name

Mary D.

Otnes

John

Pridemore

White Female White Male

Race

Sex

X

Terry Ann Pullen

White Female

X

Jenina Sheena Roberta

Ramos Reis Rylander

Hispanic Female X

X

White Female

X

White Female

X

Belem

Shankle

White Female

X

Karen Tricia
---

Sharr

Stith

--

-----

White Female White Female

X X
--

Basis of Discrimination

National
Ori~in

Age

Disability Retaliation

X

X

X

DOB 11-23-35

X

Disability

DOB 12-20-45

X

X DOB 08-18-45
X DOB 05-14-51

X

X

--

-

Exhibit 1 Page 6.

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 15 of 16

First Name Last Name

Janise

Stoltz

White Female

Race

Sex

X

Stanley RobertW.

Strong Tappert

White Male White Male

Ivana

Tarabochia White Female

X

Dianna

Thorkildson White Female

X

DianaK.

Wadley

White Female

X

Natalia

Zhikareva

White Female

X

L____

--

--

-

Basis of Discrimination

National Origin

Age
X 04-23-39

Disability Retaliation X

X

X

Disability

DOB 05-01-51

X

X

X

Disability X

DOB 07-25-45

X

X

X

DOB 09-30-54

Exhibit 1 Page 7.

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 230 Filed 02/24/05 Page 16 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served the foregoing SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following named persons on the date indicated below by: [ x ] mailing the document, first class mail, postage prepaid [ ] hand delivering the document [ x] sending the document by facsimile transmission [ ] overnight delivery to the persons named below, contained in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
Mr. Louis A. Santiago Ms. Courtney Dippel
Holland + Knight 2300 US Bancorp Tower
111 S.W. Fifth Ave. Portland, Oregon 97204 Facsimile: 503-241-8014 DATED: February 24, 2005
Page 1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 
 Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KAREN SHARR; ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. NCS PEARSON, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

Civil No. 02-1513-JO

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER

)

)

)

)

David D. Park ELLIOTT & PARK 0324 S.W. Abernethy Street Portland, OR 97201-4356

Don S. Willner DONS. WILLNER & ASSOCIATES, PC 630 Sunnyside Road Trout Lake, WA 98650

Mary Ellen Page Farr 0324 S.W. Abernethy Street Portland, OR 97201

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 24
Carlton E. Greene UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division P. 0. Box 883 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
John G. Azar John G. Knepper Martha S. Edney U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Room 7216 Washington, D.C. 20530
Ronald K. Silver UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902
Courtney C. Dippel Louis A. Santiago HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97210
Attorneys for Defendants
JONES, Judge:
On February 24, 2006, I granted defendant's motion for summary judgment(# 257)
directed solely to the issue of whether, as a matter of law, plaintiffs' disparate impact
discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA'') were preempted by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-71,
115 Stat. 597 ("ATSA").
PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 24

Defendant now moves for summary judgment (# 262) on plaintiffs' disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, and on plaintiffs' state common law claims of intentional interference with economic relations ("IIER"). For the reasons explained below, I grant defendant's motion in part and deny it in part. Specifically, I grant defendant's motion for summary judgment on all plaintiffs' federal disparate treatment and retaliation claims, and on all but 23 plaintiffs11 state common law claims.
INTRODUCTION2 In the wake ofthe September 11,2001, hijacking of four commercial airliners Congress found it necessary to require "a fundamental change in the way [the United States] approaches the task of ensuring the safety and security of the civil air transport system." Aviation and Transportation Security Act, H.R. Rep. 107-296 at 53 (2001). On November 19, 2001, Congress passed the ATSA, which established the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), and charged that agency with replacing the private sector security screeners who worked for the airlines or security agencies at 429 commercial airports nationwide with a federalized workforce responsible for all phases of passenger and baggage screening. This massive changing of the guard was to be completed by November 19, 2002, for passenger screening personnel, and by December 31, 2002, for baggage screening personnel. See 115 Stat. 615-16. The ATSA mandated that all security screener candidates pass a "federal security screening personnel selection examination," and meet specific statutory requirements regarding

See page 23, infra, for a list of the remaining plaintiffs.

2

The parties are not in total agreement regarding the background facts. Any

genuine issue concerning the disputed background facts does not affect my ruling, however,

because the disputed facts are not material to my decision.

PAGE 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 24
competence, integrity, and physical ability. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 44935(e)(2)(A), (f)(l). Pursuant to its statutory authority, TSA established a single, comprehensive assessment standard for airport security screener candidates. "Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw," a candidate could not be hired as a security screener unless he or she met the requirements of the ATSA and passed TSA's selection examination. See ATSA § 111, codified as 49 U.S.C. § 44935(e)(2)(A) (hiring qualifications) and§ 44935(f)(l) (employment standards for screening personnel).
The United States Department of Transportation solicited bids from contractors to support TSA during the nationwide screener assessment process; the contract was awarded to defendant NCS Pearson, Inc., on February 25, 2002. Pursuant to the contract, defendant was responsible for providing assessment center facilities, providing testing equipment and staff, scheduling candidate assessments, conducting the required tests and interviews, identifying qualified candidates, and assisting in awarding job offers from TSA. The assessment process and guidelines were designed by TSA, and this standardized assessment was supposed to be applied uniformly at all of the examination centers. In theory, candidates took the same tests, were given the same instructions, and were read the same scripts whether they were tested in Ohio or Oregon.
To be re-hired as a federal security screener with TSA, all private sector security screeners were required to receive passing marks on TSA's selection examinations. See ATSA § 44935(e)(2)(A). The 58 individual plaintiffs, who were employees ofHuntleigh USA Corporation ("Huntleigh") or Olympic Security Services ("Olympic"), were incumbent security screeners in Oregon airports before implementation of the ATSA who were not re-hired by TSA because-- with one exception-- each failed to pass some portion ofTSA's selection
PAGE 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 5 of 24
examinations.3 Plaintiffs allege that defendant did not engage in a fair assessment process and instead used the tests to disqualify plaintiffs, even though TSA had guaranteed plaintiffs employment if they passed the selection examinations, because defendant had already filled the available federal screener positions with new candidates. (See Sixth Amended Compl. ~~ 10, 15.) Plaintiffs also allege that the testing process put in place by defendant was used to disqualify former Huntleigh screeners because of their gender, age, race, national origin, and/or disability, and in some instances to retaliate against incumbent screeners. (See id. at~~ 15-17, 20.)
THE PRESENT MOTION In the present motion, defendant contends that plaintiffs' disparate treatment claims fail because none of the plaintiffs can put forth sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie discrimination case; specifically, defendant argues that all of the plaintiffs lack either direct or indirect evidence that gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination, or that can be used to rebut defendant's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not extending an employment offer with TSA. Defendant also contends that it cannot be held liable as an employment agency because TSA is exempted from the statutory definitions of an employer under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA.4

3

Dominic Damiani was the only plaintiff who passed all phases of the screener

selection examinations and was offered a full-time job with TSA, which he rejected. Three

plaintiffs simply did not complete the testing process due to medical holds which prevented them

from taking Phase II of the examination prior to the closure of the Portland assessment center.

However, the remaining 54 plaintiffs failed to receive passing marks on some portion ofTSA's

screener selection examinations.

4

I rejected this theory in a prior ruling. See Sharr. et al. v. NCS Pearson. Inc.,

Civil No. 02-1513-JO (Minute Order, March 30, 2004).

PAGE 5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 6 of 24
Regarding plaintiffs' state common law claims, in which plaintiffs allege that defendant intentionally interfered with TSA's alleged agreement to give former screeners preference in hiring if they passed the selection examinations, defendant argues that the claims are preempted by the ATSA. Alternatively, defendant contends that plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law because no plaintiff can satisfy all of the required elements of the ITER claim. Specifically, defendant asserts that plaintiffs cannot establish (1) that defendant was a third party to their relationship with TSA because defendant was acting as TSA's agent and at TSA's direction at all material times; and (2) that defendant's alleged intentional interference was accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose. I. The Security Screener Assessment Process
The first assessment centers opened in the latter half of June, 2002; however, the assessment center located in Portland, Oregon, did not commence operations until September 2, 2002. Early in the assessment process, several of the test airports experienced screener staffing problems because incumbent screeners were leaving their checkpoints to take the examinations, thereby causing numerous delays and flight cancellations. To ensure that large airports such as Portland International Airport ("PDX") remained operational during the security screener assessment process, TSA responded by ordering that incumbent screeners be scheduled to take their examinations after the passenger screening process had been federalized and sufficient numbers of trained TSA screeners were deployed.
Before arriving at the assessment centers, candidates applied for up to three different screener positions: transportation security screener ("Screener"), lead transportation security screener ("Lead Screener"), and/or supervisory transportation security screener ("Supervisory
PAGE 6 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 7 of 24

Screener"). Upon arrival at the Portland assessment center, candidates checked in at a "Welcome Desk," where defendant's staffers used highlighter pens to show on a list of names which candidates had arrived. Groups of approximately twenty-five candidates were then sent to a security briefing prior to commencing testing. Defendant's staffers used different highlighter colors to distinguish new arrivals who had not received the security briefing from those who had, and from candidates who had not yet checked in. Candidates also received wristbands of various colors, which corresponded to three different testing sessions per day. Defendant also used the wristbands as a visual aid to ascertain that candidates were moving through the assessment stations in proper order.5
The testing process was divided into discrete segments, called Phase I and Phase II. During Phase I, candidates were required to take three timed tests delivered on a computer: the TSA Competency Inventory, the Screener Object Recognition Test ("SORT"), and an English Fluency examination. If a candidate did not receive passing scores on the Phase I tests, the assessment process ended and he or she was not permitted to proceed to Phase II. During Phase II, each candidate completed a structured interview, a medical evaluation, physical performance tests, and a background check.
A. Phase I testine Before beginning the testing, candidates received a TSA Candidate Rules Checklist, which informed candidates that if they experienced hardware or software problems they were to notify the exam administrator by immediately raising a hand; otherwise, the administrator could

5

I note that a number of plaintiffs base their discrimination and ITER theories, in

part, on their observations of highlighted lists of names and differently colored wristbands

during the assessment process.

PAGE 7 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 8 of 24

only log candidates on to a workstation and show them how to start the assessment programs. Exam administrators were prohibited from answering any assessment-specific questions.
The TSA Competency Inventory consisted of a set of 168 questions designed to measure a candidate's potential to succeed at one of three airport security screener positions (Screener, Lead Screener, or Supervisory Screener) by assessing a candidate's knowledge, skills, and abilities in the areas of customer service, work values, responsibility/integrity, and supervision. It was also intended to measure candidates' reading and writing skills and abilities, as required by the ATSA. See 49 U.S.C. § 44935(f)(C) (listing specific English skills). TSA determined the minimum score required to pass.
The SORT exam, which was created by Federal Aviation Administration psychologists, measured candidates' ability to recognize and distinguish shapes and images in simulated x-rays ofbaggage shown on a computer screen. The ATSA specifies that "[s]creeners operating any screening equipment shall be able to distinguish each color displayed on every type of screening equipment and explain what each color signifies." 49 U.S.C. § 44935(f)(B)(ii). Again, TSA set the minimum score required to pass.
Finally, the English Fluency examination was given to all candidates, pursuant to the ATSA's specifications. See 49 U.S.C. § 44935(f)(C). However, the English Fluency exam was never scored; after candidates completed the test their results were marked as "taken" or "not taken." Therefore, none ofthe plaintiffs failed Phase I of the testing based on his or her performance on this portion of the assessment.6

6

Several plaintiffs based their claims of discrimination due to race or national

origin on the fact that the testing emphasized English language skills.

PAGE 8 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 9 of 24

Due to security concerns, the contents and scoring algorithms of the TSA Competency Inventory and the SORT exams were encrypted on defendant's network server at the assessment center. Defendant's computer software, which was running on each individual test station, collected that candidate's responses and immediately calculated, encrypted, and stored the candidate's scores on defendant's network server for transmission to defendant's central database. The tests' scoring algorithms consisted of compiled computer code that could not be interpreted or modified by humans or other computer programs; therefore, it was virtually impossible for plaintiffs' Phase I test scores to have been manipulated by defendant at the Portland assessment center.
During Phase I, all candidates took the same tests, regardless of the screener position for which they had applied. So, a candidate who applied for the highest-ranking Supervisory Screener job took the same tests as someone who applied for the lowest-ranking Screener position; however, a candidate was required to achieve a higher score on the "supervision" content areas in order to qualify for the top job. If a candidate applied for a Supervisory Screener or Lead Screener position, but passed only at the Screener rank, he or she would still have passed Phase I and been qualified for a job as a basic Screener.7
B. Phase II testine The only portions of the Phase II testing at issue in this case involve the medical evaluation and the physical abilities tests. Defendant hired a subcontractor, Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. ("CHS ") to conduct these portions of the security screener assessment

7

Several plaintiffs complained that they had applied for a lower-level screener

position, but were compelled to take the tests for a higher-level position, thereby causing them to

fail Phase I. Of the 58 current plaintiffs, 31 failed one or more of the Phase I examinations.

PAGE 9 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 10 of 24
process. If a candidate did not pass or otherwise successfully complete the medical evaluation, he or she was not permitted to take the physical performance tests.
1. Medical evaluations and related issues To conduct the medical evaluation, each assessment center had a combination of nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians who administered the various examinations. Candidates were given a hearing exam, a vision exam, a vital signs test, a drug test, and a full physical examination, including an orthopedic assessment. Candidates were also required to review their medical history in an interview with a medical practitioner. TSA's medical requirements were incorporated into standardized forms, which were intended to guide the medical staff members through the data collection and reporting processes. The medical evaluation was designed to be uniformly administered at assessment centers nationwide, using a standardized process with standardized components, and utilizing the same paperwork. TSA, based on the ATSA requirements, set precise standards for candidates' vision, including color perception; blood pressure; and orthopedic capacity, including the medically unrestricted ability to lift and carry baggage weighing up to 70 pounds. If one of the medical staff members observed that a candidate did not satisfy TSA's physical fitness requirements, additional follow-up may or may not have been ordered, depending on the candidate's particular medical condition. A candidate with a permanent uncorrectable condition such as color-
PAGE 10 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 11 of 24

blindness or lack of capability to repeatedly lift 70 pounds, which would prevent him or her from meeting TSA's requirements, was designated as a "medical fail," and was disqualified from employment as a TSA security screener.8
Candidates with correctable conditions such as nearsightedness, farsightedness, high blood pressure, or temporary lifting restrictions were placed on "medical hold" and were given paperwork requiring them to have follow-up examinations with their personal physicians to obtain additional medical information. Such candidates were informed that they were still eligible for employment, but would remain on medical hold until their physicians verified that the medical condition(s) at issue were corrected. The instruction paperwork included a toll-free number to call if a candidate had questions about the follow-up medical process, and also provided the fax number and address for CHS's corporate office, where a candidate was directed to submit his or her completed medical hold paperwork.
CHS medical personnel reviewed the affected candidate's additional medical data after receiving the required paperwork from the candidate's physician. If the physician reported that the candidate's medical condition did not meet TSA's requirements, CHS disqualified the candidate; however, if the physician certified compliance with TSA's standards, CHS designated the candidate as "cleared" and was supposed to be scheduled to complete the remainder of Phase II. Problems arose when TSA closed the local assessment centers, including the one in Portland, by October 18, 2002, and closed the five remaining "super centers" by November 19, 2002, so that several incumbent screeners were denied the opportunity to complete their Phase II

8

Two plaintiffs failed the medical evaluation because they had permanent or

uncorrectable conditions: Joshua Meisenheimer (color-blindness), and Velma Gunn (25-pound

lifting restriction due to lower lumbar strain).

PAGE 11 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 12 of 24

assessments.9 TSA would not authorize defendant to schedule any further assessments after the super centers closed; accordingly, TSA became responsible for completing the assessments.
2. Physical abilities testin2 and related issues The physical abilities testing was comprised of two separate examinations: the luggage lift test, and the baggage search test. 10 During the luggage lift test, administrators were supposed to read scripted general instructions to the candidates, who were then tested one at a time in a closed testing area. The timed test involved moving boxes of varying weights, labeled with the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4, from their designated spaces on the floor to their designated spaces on a table. Again, reading from a script, the test administrator directed a candidate to lift the series of four boxes in a specific sequence, alternating from the table to a designated place on the floor. The administrator recorded each "completed move" on a score sheet, as well as any failures to follow instructions, such as running during the test or skipping boxes. To meet TSA's standard, a candidate had to move at least sixteen boxes in a three-minute period. 11 TSA standardized the luggage lift test, and it was supposed to be uniformly administered nationwide. The numbered boxes contained the same weights, every candidate was directed to go through the same series of events, and the order in which the numbered boxes were lifted was part of the predefined test. Nevertheless, the factual record shows that there were some minor anomalies associated with the Phase II luggage lift test, although the evidence is very weak as to

9

Plaintiffs William Damron and Linda Ocampo both needed to complete the

physical abilities tests, and have not done so as of the date of this disposition.

10

None of the plaintiffs failed the baggage search tests.

II

Of the 58 plaintiffs, 20 failed the Phase II luggage lift test.

PAGE 12 -OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 13 of 24
whether the anomalies amount to unlawful discriminatory treatment. II. Legal Analysis of Plaintiffs' Claims
Plaintiffs do not dispute defendant's general descriptions of the Phase I and Phase II tests, and admit that defendant has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the employment decisions at issue in this case; thus, defendant has satisfied its burden of production. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Accordingly, the issues remaining to be resolved at the summary judgment stage with respect to plaintiffs' federal disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation claims are as follows: (1) are plaintiffs' federal disparate treatment claims cognizable in light of the ATSA: (2) has each plaintiff established his or her prima facie case; and if so, (3) has each plaintiff provided the specific and substantial evidence necessary to show that defendant's reasons for disqualifying him or her were a pretext to accomplish intentional discrimination? See Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 663-64 (9th Cir. 2002).
With respect to the plaintiffs' state common law claims, two questions remain: (1) is Oregon common law preempted by the ATSA; if not, (2) has each plaintiff established his or her prima facie case for intentional interference with economic relations?
To defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs must present admissible evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence ... will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the opposing party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S.
PAGE 13- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 14 of 24

242, 252 (1986). 12 A. Federal Claims I first note that defendant moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs' ADA disparate
treatment claims based on ATSA preemption, but not on plaintiffs' Title VII or ADEA claims. In ruling that the ATSA preempts plaintiffs' disparate impact claims, I explained that the plain language of the ATSA evinces Congress' intent to exempt TSA from the intricacies of the otherwise applicable labor and employment laws to expedite the process of hiring and training the necessary workforce. I further explained that the testing process was designed to ensure that airport security screeners are bright, capable, literate, and physically and mentally able to perform the demands of the screener jobs. See Sharr, et al. v. NCS Pearson. Inc., Civil No. 02-1513-JO (Opinion and Order, Feb. 23, 2006), p. 5. To that end, TSA created a facially neutral test to ensure that regardless of any candidate's membership in one or more protected class, only persons who passed the test were eligible and suitable for hire, and those who did not pass the test were not.
Against this background, and in light of Congress' intent in enacting the ATSA, I conclude that plaintiffs' ADA disparate treatment claims based on actual or perceived disability are preempted. Only three plaintiffs produced evidence suggesting even a remote possibility of disparate treatment discrimination based on perceived disability (Faith Malcolm, Robert Tappert, and Diana Wadley), but even if those three claims might otherwise survive summary

12

Federal courts use the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 in evaluating a motion for

summary judgment directed to a state law claim, even if the state summary judgment rule would

produce a different result. See Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, RUTTER GROUP PRAC.

GUIDE: FED. CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2005), p. 1-35, '1[1:57.4 and the

cases cited therein.

PAGE 14- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 15 of 24
judgment, they are preempted and not cognizable in this court. I do not need to determine whether the ATSA similarly preempts Title VII and ADEA disparate treatment claims because, as discussed below, no plaintiffhas submitted specific and substantial evidence sufficient to survive defendant's motion for summary judgment on those claims.
1. Title VII discrimination claims To survive summary judgment on their Title VII claims, plaintiffs must produce evidence sufficient to establish that defendant, acting as an employment agency, "fail[ed] or refuse[d] to refer for employment or otherwise discriminate[d) against Plaintiffs because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin." 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(b). "The McDonnell Douglas analysis imposes on the plaintiff an initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination; ... [in order to] establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must offer evidence that 'give[s] rise to an inference ofunlawful discrimination."' Godwin v. Hunt Wesson. Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981)). In this case, where there is an absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the elements of a Title VII disparate treatment claim that each individual plaintiff must prove are as follows: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) the plaintiff was qualified for the position for which he or she applied; (3) the plaintiff was rejected for employment or otherwise subjected to an adverse employment action by defendant; and (4) the plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated persons outside of his or her protected class(es). See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; see also Chuang v. University of California Davis, 225 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2000). "The requisite degree of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case for Title VII ... on summary judgment is minimal and does not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance
PAGE 15 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 16 of 24
ofthe evidence." Godwin, 150 F.3d at 1220 (internal citations omitted). 2. ADEA discrimination claims
Under the ADEA, it is "unlawful for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(l ). "When a plaintiff alleges disparate treatment, 'liability depends on whether the protected trait (under the ADEA, age) actually motivated the employer's decision."' Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products. Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141 (2000) (quoting Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993)). A plaintiff must therefore demonstrate that his or her age "actually played a role in [the employer's decisionmaking] process and had a determinative influence on the outcome." Hazen Paper Co., 507 U.S. at 604.
The analysis for plaintiffs' ADEA claims is essentially the same as that for their Title VII claims: plaintiffs must establish a prima facie case of age discrimination to survive summary judgment. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. 792; Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994) Individual plaintiffs claiming age discrimination must therefore prove that they: (1) were over 40 at the time of the alleged discriminatory incidents; (2) were qualified for employment; (3) were rejected for employment or otherwise subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) were replaced by substantially younger persons with equal or inferior qualifications. O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Com., 517 U.S. 308, 312-12 (1996); 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Age must be the "motivating factor" in the rejection or adverse employment action. See Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co.. Inc., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004).
PAGE 16- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 17 of 24

3. Plaintiffs individual Title VII and ADEA claims Plaintiffs contend that they generally have established the elements of their Title Vll and ADEA claims by submitting both statistical and anecdotal evidence showing that defendant's "sham testing" was a pretext for discriminatory hiring practices. The anecdotal evidence consists of allegedly biased remarks several plaintiffs claim to have overheard at the Portland assessment center, and affidavits of former Olympic Security, Inc., employees who took the assessments at other centers, and overheard similar remarks. 13 Plaintiffs also offer the declaration of Robert R. Sinclair, Ph.D., who performed a statistical analysis of the individuals who had previously been employed by Huntleigh at PDX, and found that defendant's TSA Competency Inventory exam adversely impacted women, people over forty, and Asian/Pacific Islanders. (Sinclair Decl., at 2-3.)14 In addition, Dr. Sinclair attests that defendant did not administer the TSA Competency Inventory in conformity with the professional standards for test administration because candidates were treated differently, and there were no procedures in place to review the fairness of validity of the test. (ld. at 4-5.) In the Ninth Circuit, "a plaintiff who offers substantial evidence that the employer's proffered reasons were not reliable ... has made a sufficient showing to create triable issues with respect to the employer's motivation." Godwin, 150 F.3d at 1219 (internal citations omitted).

13

Defendant has moved to strike this evidence; indeed, the parties have filed

extensive motions to strike directed to each other's submissions (see## 350, 421, 422, 423).

Because I do not rely on inadmissible evidence in this decision, the motions are denied as moot,

with leave for the parties to raise any relevant objections at the final pretrial conference.

14

Dr. Sinclair did not analyze any impacts based on applicants' national origin or

disability discrimination claims. Also, Dr. Sinclair admitted that his analysis showed no adverse

impact on African-Americans or Hispanic applicants. (Sinclair Decl., at 3.)

PAGE 17 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 18 of 24
Defendants contend, and I agree, that while Dr. Sinclair's statistical analysis may, if otherwise admissible under Rule 702, be probative on the issue of disparate impact, I have already ruled that ATSA preempts the impact claims. Dr. Sinclair's analysis may be probative in evaluating plaintiffs' individual disparate treatment claims, but only in those individual cases where plaintiffs have provided some other evidence tending to prove their prima facie claims. This is not a "pattern or practice" case; consequently, statistical evidence cannot provide the sole evidence of individual discriminatory treatment. Instead, statistical evidence comes into play as circumstantial evidence that could, "if sufficiently probative, point to bias" and negate the defendant's explanation of the adverse employment decision as "unworthy of credence." Coghlan v. American Seafoods Co. LLC, 413 F.3d 1090, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2005)(citations omitted); see also Obrey v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 691, 694-95 (9th Cir. 2005)(in a "pattern or practice" case, statistical evidence may constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination; in other cases, statistical evidence is helpful in showing that an employer's articulated reason for the employment decision is pretextual (citations omitted)).
More direct are the factual reports of the individual plaintiffs themselves, some ofwhich contain direct observations of allegedly discriminatory remarks made by TSA personnel and/or assessment center staff. Whether those remarks amount to the "specific and substantial" evidence necessary to establish pretext must be decided on a case-by-case basis. See Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 663-64 (9th Cir. 2002) (statistical evidence does not account for possible nondiscrimination variables, such as job performance).
With respect to those plaintiffs who failed the Phase I computer-based examinations, plaintiffs have failed to provide specific and substantial evidence demonstrating that the Phase I
PAGE 18 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 19 of 24

testing was fundamentally unreliable. Although a number ofplaintiffs complain about test conditions (inadequate lighting, system crashes, people talking during the test), plaintiffs present no evidence that any of their Phase I scores were manipulated to cause them to fail because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. On this issue, I have considered plaintiffs' supplemental submissions, and I am not persuaded that the alleged irregularities in the Phase I testing amounted to disparate discriminatory treatment. The ATSA specifically required certain capabilities, and the 31 plaintiffs who failed to pass the Phase I testing simply were not qualified for the job of TSA security screener. With respect to those 31 plaintiffs, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to their federal and state claims. Defendant's motion is also granted as to all claims of plaintiff Damiani, who passed both Phase I and II but turned down TSA'sjob offer, and the ADEA claim ofplaintiffMingzhorY
Plaintiffs similarly have not shown that the Phase II physical capacity tests were fundamentally unreliable. The ATSA required that security screeners possess certain physical skills, such as full-color vision, the ability to repeatedly lift and carry up to 70 pounds, and to generally be fit for daily duty. See generally 49 U.S.C. § 44935(e) and (f). TSA designed its assessments to evaluate candidates' fitness for employment. The record shows that five plaintiffs16 who failed the medical evaluation, or were placed on "medical hold," had an objective

15

Mingzhor failed the Phase I test at the Los Angeles testing center. His complaint

is that he was not allowed to retest in the Portland testing center. No evidence supports

Mingzhor's age-based discrimination claim.

16

These five are: William Damron, Judith Detmer, Velma Gunn, Joseph

Meisenheimer, and Linda Ocampo. Of these five, Velma Gunn and Joseph Meisenheimer never

cleared their medical holds and, therefore, have no valid federal or state law claims because they

never qualified for TSA employment.

PAGE 19 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 20 of 24
condition which prevented them from meeting TSA's standards; there is no evidence that their test results were manipulated to prevent them from passing based on membership in a protected class. These five plaintiffs were not qualified for employment as TSA screeners as of the date of their assessments; accordingly, they have failed to establish their prima facie cases for disparate treatment discrimination.
A few of the 20 plaintiffs who failed the Phase II luggage lift test have shown minor anomalies in the testing and scoring process, and plaintiffs' evidence suggests that the Phase II luggage lift test was not administered as consistently as other tests so that there may have been some room for manipulation in the scoring. While plaintiffs may be correct that the luggage lift test was not necessarily always administered according to TSA's scripted and standardized design, plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence that the anomalies observed in the administration and scoring of the Phase II luggage lift exam were the result of discriminatory animus in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, and even the ADA.
In sum, defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' Title VII, ADEA, and ADA claims is granted.
4. Retaliation claims Two plaintiffs, Dominic Damiani and Diana Wadley, allege retaliation claims. Assuming without deciding that the retaliation claims are cognizable, neither claim survives on the merits. To prove retaliation, these plaintiffs must show that (1) they engaged in a protected activity; (2) defendant subjected them to an adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and defendant's action. See Bergene v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power, 272 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2001) (Title VII claim). A "protected activity" includes
PAGE 20 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 21 of 24

opposing unlawful employment practices, or making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing alleging discrimination. See Bahri v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 242 F.Supp.2d 922, 952 (D.Or. 2002); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (ADEA); 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (ADA). Each plaintiff must provide evidence to show that defendant was aware that the plaintiff engaged in the protected activity at issue and, to establish the causal link, each plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was the likely reason for the adverse employment action. Bahri, 242 F.Supp.2d at 953.
Damiani and Wadley have failed to establish their prima facie cases. Neither plaintiff has shown that he or she was engaged in a "protected activity" with respect to defendant, nor has either plaintiff shown that a causal link between any alleged protected activity and the failure to obtain TSA screener positions. Consequently, I grant defendant's motion with respect to plaintiffs' retaliation claims.
B. State Common Law HER Claims17 All 58 plaintiffs allege a state common law claim for IIER. The elements ofthis claim are: (1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, ~. a contract or a prospective economic advantage); (2) intentional interference with that relationship

17

Defendant contends that the ATSA preempts plaintiffs' state common law claims.

I reject that argument because, while I have found that Congress signaled a clear intent to

supplant federal law claims, I am not persuaded that it intended to do so with respect to state

common law claims. See Conyers v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 388 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed.

Cir. 2004)(whether a "notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause preempts state law is a

question that turns on congressional intent)(citing E.P. Paup Co. v. Dep't of Labor, 999 F.2d

1341, 1348-49 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that a "notwithstanding" clause "does not always

provide a clear indication that Congress intended to preempt, particularly when there is

legislative intent to the contrary")).

PAGE 21 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 22 of 24
or advantage; (3) by a third party; (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose; (5) a causal effect between the interference and the harm to the relationship or prospective advantage; and (6) damages. Allen v. Hall, 328 Or. 276, 281, 974 P.2d 199 (1999) (citations omitted).
If, in fact, TSA agreed to give priority in hiring to Huntleigh or Olympic employees, it was conditioned on passing the screener selection examinations and accepting the job if offered. The 31 plaintiffs who failed Phase I, the two plaintiffs who never cleared their medical holds, and plaintiff Damiani (34 plaintiffs), cannot prove that they met these conditions of employment. Additionally, plaintiffMingzhor failed the Phase I test in Los Angeles and has not presented any evidence that defendant's failure to allow him to retest six months later in Portland constituted intentional interference with Mingzhor's prospective business relationship with TSA accomplished through an improper means or for an improper purpose. Consequently, defendant's motion for summary judgment as to these 35 plaintiffs' state law claims is granted.
With respect to the remaining 23 plaintiffs, their state claims succeed or fail based on the fourth element of an IIER claim. Plaintiffs contend that defendant failed to validate its assessment process while administering the tests to verify that the tests were actually being given according to TSA's standards, and that defendant's failure to do so violates professional standards of examination administration, thereby amounting to "improper means." In the context of this litigation and plaintiffs' allegations, to establish "improper means" or "improper purpose," plaintiffs must prove defendant intentionally administered the tests improperly, with the purpose of disqualifying incumbent screeners because the open positions already had been filled by nonincumbent candidates.
PAGE 22 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 23 of 24
Because evidence suggests that the Phase II test administration may, in some cases, have affected plaintiffs' ability to pass the test for improper subjective reasons,~. applicants who were in fact qualified were not selected in violation of the alleged priority in hiring agreement, I cannot conclude as a matter oflaw, at least at the summary judgment stage, that no reasonable fact finder could find in favor of plaintiffs on their state law claims. Consequently, the following plaintiffs are entitled to proceed on the state law theory: Hector Aguirre, Emma Bradford, Mary Coco, William Damron, Judith Detmer, Gail Dixon, Russell Dooley, Karen Dutter, Sandra Espinoza, Leroy Fich, Melinda Gammage, Josephine Hill, Sharon Joslin, Roger Karr, Barbara Lugo, Faith Malcolm, Linda Ocampo, John Pridemore, Terry Pullen, Karen Sharr, Stanley Strong, Robert Tappert, and Diana Wadley.
My denial of summary judgment on those plaintiffs' state law claims should not be construed as implying that any plaintiffs state law claim will survive a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the end of plaintiffs' fact presentation or at the conclusion of the trial. Nevertheless, giving these 23 plaintiffs every benefit of the doubt, I deny defendant's motion as to them.
CONCLUSION Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' Title VII, ADEA, and ADA claims is granted. 2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' retaliation claims is granted.
PAGE 23 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 536 Filed 03/28/06 Page 24 of 24 3. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs state law claims is denied with respect to plaintiffs Hector Aguirre, Emma Bradford, Mary Coco, William Damron, Judith Detmer, Gail Dixon, Russell Dooley, Karen Dutter, Sandra Espinoza, Leroy Fich, Melinda Gammage, Josephine Hill, Sharon Joslin, Roger Karr, Barbara Lugo, Faith Malcolm, Linda Ocampo, John Pridemore, Terry Pullen, Karen Sharr, Stanley Strong, Robert Tappert, and Diana Wadley, and granted as to the remaining plaintiffs. 4. The parties' motions to strike evidence(## 350, 421, 422, 423) are denied as moot with leave to raise any relevant objections to admissibility of the evidence at the final pretrial conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.
PAGE 24 - OPINION AND ORDER

 
 Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 417 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KAREN SHARR; ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. NCS PEARSON, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

Civil No. 02-1513-JO

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER

)

)

)

)

David D. Park ELLIOTT & PARK 0324 S.W. Abernethy Street Portland, OR 97201-4356

Don S. Willner DON S. WILLNER & ASSOCIATES, PC 630 Sunnyside Road Trout Lake, WA 98650

Mary Ellen Page Farr 0324 S.W. Abernethy Street Portland, OR 97201

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 417 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 6
Carlton E. Greene UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division P. O. Box 883 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
John G. Azar John G. Knepper Martha S. Edney U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Room 7216 Washington, D.C. 20530
Ronald K. Silver UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902
Courtney C. Dippel Louis A. Santiago HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97210
Attorneys for Defendants
JONES, Judge:
On September 11, 2001, the United States experienced horrific acts of terrorism, familiar
to all, when foreign terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed them, full of
passengers and crew members, into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania
countryside, precipitating a national crisis unprecedented in recent history. In response to the
airport security breakdown that allowed the hijackings, on November 19, 2001, Congress
enacted the Aviation Transportation Security Act ("ATSA"), Pub.L. 107-71, emergency
legislation designed to help secure the nation's vulnerable commercial airports.
2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 417 Filed 02/24/06 Page 3 of 6

The ATSA federalized airport security, created the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), and charged the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security1 with day-to-day security screening operations at commercial airports nationwide. The ATSA mandated minimum standards for hiring and training security screening personnel; directed that "notwithstanding any provision of law," TSA establish airport screener qualifications and standards consistent with the ATSA minimum standards; and, by November 19, 2002, TSA hire, train, and deploy sufficient federal security screeners to conduct screening of all passengers and property at the nation's commercial airports. TSA solicited bids from contractors to support it in this great endeavor, and effective February 25, 2002, awarded the contract to NCS Pearson, Inc., the defendant in the present action.
In the process of federalization, private sector security screeners lost their jobs. TSA, through defendant, recruited both these "incumbent screeners," like plaintiffs, and new applicants to fill the newly created federal airport security positions. The plaintiffs in this action failed the initial testing,2 which took place in Portland, Oregon, from early September 2002, through October 18, 2002. On November 7, 2002, plaintiffs filed this action.
THE PRESENT MOTION Defendant NCS Pearson moves for summary judgment (# 257) on plaintiffs' disparate impact discrimination claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), as alleged in their Sixth Amended

1

Now known as the "Administrator."

2

At the hearing on the present motion, the court was informed that one or more

plaintiffs, including plaintiff Karen Sharr, have since reapplied and obtained airport screener

positions with TSA.

3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 417 Filed 02/24/06 Page 4 of 6

Complaint,3 arguing that the ATSA preempts those claims. This issue is solely a question of law
and for purposes of this motion, defendant does not challenge the factual merits of plaintiffs'
disparate impact claims. See Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment, p. 2 n.1.
I agree with defendant that the ATSA preempts plaintiffs' Title VII, ADA, and ADEA
disparate impact claims. In enacting the ATSA, Congress, obviously aware of the federal labor
and employment laws, included specific provisions granting TSA great flexibility with respect to
security screeners. Section 111(d) of the ATSA, codified as a note to 49 U.S.C. § 44935,
clarified Congress' decision that:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security may employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the compensation, terms, and conditions of employment of Federal service for such a number of individuals as the Under Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the screening functions of the Under Secretary under section 44901 of title 49, United States Code. The Under Secretary shall establish levels of compensation and other benefits for individuals so employed.
In legislating minimum qualifications and standards for the Under Secretary's program for hiring
and training security screeners, Congress mandated that the Under Secretary apply those
minimum qualifications and standards "notwithstanding any provision of law." 49 U.S.C.
§ 44935(e)(2)(A) (hiring qualifications) and § 44935(f)(1) (employment standards for screening
personnel).

3

As part of their response, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike (# 333) certain

testimony of Stephen Maier, defendant's former Vice President of Homeland Security, set forth

in his Declaration in Support of Defendant's Motion. As I ruled during the hearing on

February 21, 2006, plaintiffs' motion is granted with respect to Maier's statement that defendant

applied the standards for qualifying for federal security screener positions "uniformly * * * to

screener candidates across the nation" based on his lack of personal knowledge.

4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 417 Filed 02/24/06 Page 5 of 6
The plain language of the ATSA evinces Congress' intent to exempt TSA from the intricacies of the otherwise applicable labor and employment laws to expedite the process of hiring and training the necessary workforce. The result was a facially neutral testing process designed to ensure that airport security screeners are bright, capable, literate, and physically and mentally able to perform the demanding requirements of a job that is, in essence, a front-line position in the effort to protect this nation's borders via the commercial airports. Under the facially neutral test and regardless of race, ethnic background, age, or other potentially protected class, only persons who passed the test were eligible and suitable for hire.
I conclude that the language "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law" signals Congress' intent that the screener-specific provisions of the ATSA override more general conflicting statutory provisions to the extent that they might otherwise apply to screeners. In this I agree with the Federal Circuit in Conyers v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 388 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2004), that the "'[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law' language renders inapplicable general federal statutes that otherwise would apply to the Under Secretary's power to 'employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the compensation, terms and conditions of employment of Federal service' for screener positions." 388 F.3d at 1382 (emphasis in original).
Consequently, I hold that the ATSA preempts plaintiffs' disparate impact claims under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA and therefore grant defendant's motion.4
CONCLUSION

4

Issues as to whether or to what extent, if any, the ATSA preempts plaintiffs'

disparate treatment claims and state common law claims are not presently before the court in this

motion and are not addressed by this ruling.

5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 417 Filed 02/24/06 Page 6 of 6 Defendant's motion for summary judgment (# 257) on plaintiffs' disparate impact claims is granted. Plaintiffs' motion to strike (# 333) certain testimony of Stephen Maier is granted. DATED this 23rd day of February, 2006.
/s/ Robert E. Jones ROBERT E. JONES U.S. District Judge
6 - OPINION AND ORDER

 
 Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

K ·\REN SHARR, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NCS PEARSON, INC., a Minnesota corporation,
Defendant.

) Case No. 3-02-01513-JO ) ) VERDICT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:

1. HECTOR AGUIRRE

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER: j

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ ,J~) d ~ ,), .. (p <(;

Noneconomic Damages: $ iO,DDO

Page 1 -VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 13

2. EMMA BRADFORD

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER: V YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages: Noneconomic Damages:

$ I 0 0 Db

3. MARYCOCO

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B." If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$/t-l L1(pj_,2b

Noneconomic Damages:

$ _ /_0____._Q_ ()O_ __

Page 2 -VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 13

4. WILLIAM DAMRON

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiff's prospective economic relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this plallltiti only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict form.

B. What are this plaintiff's damages?

Economic Damages:

$ ~ (p 2 3 Lt ·1

Noneconomic Damages:

5. JUDITH DETMER

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiff's prospective economic relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

Ifyou answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict form.

B. What are this plaintiff's damages?

Economic Damages:

$ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Noneconomic Damages: $ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Page 3 -VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 4 of 13

6. GAIL DIXON

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plamt1fL only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section ofthe verdict form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages: Noneconomic Damages:

$ d {p I :__~ Lf 7
s ;u, o o o

7. RUSSELL DOOLEY

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

Ifyou answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B." If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ / IJ 3 3 &/ , ~ L(

Noneconomic Damages: $ I{) · 0 0 0

Page 4 - VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 5 of 13

8. KAREN DUTTER

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

~ YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plamttff ;mly. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages: Noneconomic Damages:

$ _1_0_i0_00_ __

9. SANDRA ESPINOZA

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

V ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ I~ I ?:,Lt l

Noneconomic Damages:

$ j()l Q() C)

Page 5 - VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 6 of 13

10. LEROY FICH

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaint1JT, 'mly You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

- . ·-s- $

--1-'0-

-

<:>&~.':;)
'- - - - -

Noneconomic Damages:

oo u $ _t_ D..!_,_ _ _ __

11. MELINDA GAMMAGE

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

V YES

NO

Ifyou answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ 1D; d S~4 · fC)

Noneconomic Damages:

Page 6- VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 7 of 13

12. JOSEPHINE HILL

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

V ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plamtiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$~5',041

oo Noneconomic Damages:

$ I D;

0

13. SHARON JOSLIN

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER: /YES

NO

Ifyou answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ J&) 31-l l

Noneconomic Damages:

$ 10 1 00 D

Page 7- VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 8 of 13

l ·~ RQGER KARR

A Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiff's prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

V YES

NO

Tf you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintd'f only You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiff's damages?

Economic Damages:

$ d (.p 3Li "/

Noneconomic Damages: $ fO;ooo

15. BARBARAANNLUGO

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiff's prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiff's damages?

Economic Damages: Noneconomic Damages:

$ ;;)~) 34 7
$ IDi oo o

Page 8 -VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 9 of 13

16. FAITH MALCOLM

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this
n: plwnti only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ Lf c;(. ~I ~-~

Noneconomic Damages: $ 10,()00

17. LINDAOCAMPO

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

V ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ d.(p, ·3y}

Noneconomic Damages: $ }01000

Page 9 -VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 10 of 13

16 JOHN PRIDEMORE

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plamtiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ -;;;) (p) 34 l

Noneconomic Damages: $10, 00()

19. TERRY PULLEN

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

/YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages: Noneconomic Damages:

$::2~)~~~
$ I() I oo 0

Page 10- VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 11 of 13

A Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER: ,y' YES

NO

If .v•:ll1 answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

phun!lff, .mly. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section ofthe verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ ;;>~, 34'1

Noneconomic Damages:

$ __I_D_~.~o--O--C--)----

21. STANLEY STRONG

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

V ANSWER:

YES

NO

Ifyou answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ ;;:),_ ~ ) ·~ L-f 7

Noneconomic Damages: $10,000

Page 11 - VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 12 of 13

22 ROBERT TAPPERT

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER: / YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered "No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

piaai1lff, only. You should not answer question "B." Proceed to the next section of the verdict

form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ I 5 J 5-3 ·Lj.

Noneconomic Damages: $ (0;00 0

23. DIANA WADLEY

A. Did defendant intentionally interfere with this plaintiffs prospective economic

relationship with TSA?

ANSWER:

YES

NO

lfyou answered "Yes" to question "A," proceed to Question "B."

If you answered ''No" to question "A," your verdict is for the defendant as to this

plaintiff, only. You should not answer question "B." The presiding juror should sign and date

the verdict form.

B. What are this plaintiffs damages?

Economic Damages:

$ d (, I 6 LI 'l

Noneconomic Damages: $ ID ooC

Page 12 -VERDICT

Case 3:02-cv-01513-JO Document 560 Filed 04/19/06 Page 13 of 13

A~J LJ.,, .1 l)

11, 2oo6

Jtvi.....e .4,~ ~~~,_
Presiding Juror

Page 13 - VERDICT

 
 Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 1 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>
FRC,JT,PROTECTIVE ORD,TERMINATED
U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Portland (3)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:02−cv−01513−JO

Sharr et al v. NCS Pearson, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Robert E. Jones Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/07/2002 Date Terminated: 08/29/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Employment Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Karen Sharr

represented by David D. Park Elliott & Park 0324 SW Abermethy St. Portland, OR 97239 503−227−1690 Fax: 503−274−8384 Email: dave@elliott−park.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner Don S. Willner & Associates, PC 630 Sunnyside Road Trout Lake, WA 98650 (509) 395−2000 Fax: (509) 395−2939 Email: donswillner@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere Heinson & DeDobbelaere LLC 9200 SE Sunnybrook Blvd. Suite 335 Clackamas, OR 97015 503−479−6223 Fax: 503−405−4283 Email: lori@heinsonlaw.com TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr 0324 S.W. Abernethy Street Portland, OR 97239 (503) 224−9133 Fax: (503) 827−5060 Email: mefarr@maryellenfarr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mary Coco

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 2 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Dana Curry
Plaintiff Robert Hein
Plaintiff Katherine Powell TERMINATED: 05/20/2004

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 3 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Sheena Reis individually and on behalf of all former employees of HUNTLEIGH USA Corporation who were not retained as screeners at the Portland International Airport
Plaintiff Natalia Zhikhareva
Plaintiff Diana Wadley

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 4 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dianna Thorkildson

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ivana Tarabochia

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert Tappert

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 5 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Stanley Strong

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Janise Stoltz

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Trish Stith

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 6 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Belem Shankle

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Remy Scott TERMINATED: 12/08/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bibi Sahibdeen−Southard TERMINATED: 09/24/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 7 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Roberta Rylander
Plaintiff Jenina Ramos
Plaintiff Larry Pullen TERMINATED: 05/20/2004
Plaintiff John Pridemore

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 8 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mary Otnes

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gheorghe Onescu

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Linda Ocampo

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 9 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeannette Moldenhauer TERMINATED: 03/16/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dennis Minzghor

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chris Meyer TERMINATED: 09/24/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 10 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joshua Meisenheimer

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Faith Malcolm

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Barbara Ann Lugo

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 11 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Karen Letcher
Plaintiff Barbara Kloulechad TERMINATED: 12/09/2004
Plaintiff Krystyna Korfanty

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 12 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Roger Karr

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sharon Joslin

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Troy Jones TERMINATED: 12/09/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 13 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Leonard Hughes TERMINATED: 09/24/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Myrna Hipp TERMINATED: 12/09/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Josephine Hill

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 14 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Mary Ann Hernandez TERMINATED: 01/25/2006
Plaintiff Cheri Helgeson TERMINATED: 09/24/2004
Plaintiff Rachel Hayes
Plaintiff Gerald Handegard

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 15 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Conchita Haddenham

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Velma Gunn

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
David Greenman TERMINATED: 09/24/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 16 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nikki Goon

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Irena Gawlowicz

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lea Garcia TERMINATED: 05/20/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 17 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Melinda Gammage

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michaela Fogerty TERMINATED: 09/24/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Amanda Fleming

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 18 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Leroy Fich
Plaintiff Sandra Espinoza
Plaintiff Usar Einert

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 19 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Karen Dutter

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Russell Dooley

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gail Dixon

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 20 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Judith Detner

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nathan Deceaser TERMINATED: 12/09/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William Damron

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 21 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Dominic Damiani
Plaintiff Charles Craig, Jr. TERMINATED: 09/24/2004
Plaintiff Shannon Cooper
Plaintiff Ruth Conner

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 22 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bong Hui Burke TERMINATED: 09/24/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Don Buell

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Elia Brimer TERMINATED: 05/20/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 23 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Emma Bradford

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hannah Beck

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff George Beck

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 24 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeff Bateman

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Amy Baledge TERMINATED: 05/20/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jennifer Armon TERMINATED: 09/24/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 25 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Jennifer Anderson
Plaintiff Hector Aguirre
Plaintiff Gloria Aguirre

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori K. DeDobbelaere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 26 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sheena Reis

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lyle Lott TERMINATED: 09/24/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Terry Pullen

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Leah Garcia

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 27 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

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

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Amie Baledge TERMINATED: 12/09/2004

represented by David D. Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don S. Willner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Ellen Page Farr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Department of Transportation being sued as NORMAN MINETA, Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation And Administrator Of The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), in his official capacity TERMINATED: 03/30/2004

represented by Carlton E. Greene United States Department of Justice Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division P.O. Box 883 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 514−4938 Fax: (202) 616−8460 Email: carlton.greene@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John G. Azar US Dept of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave NW Room 7216 Washington, DC 20530 (202)514−4710 Fax: (202)616−8202 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John G. Knepper U.S. Dept of Justice Civil Division/Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave N.W. Room #7216 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−4710 Fax: (202) 616−8202 Email: john.knepper@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 28 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

Marsha S. Edney US Dept of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave NW Room 7216 Washington, DC 20530 (202)514−4710 Fax: (202)616−8202 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald K. Silver United States Attorneys Office 1000 SW Third Ave. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204−2902 503−727−1044 Fax: 503−727−1117 Email: ron.silver@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NCS Pearson, Inc. a Minnesota corporation

represented by Courtney C. Dippel Folawn Alterman and Richardson, LLP 805 SW Broadway Suite 2750 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 546−4630 Fax: (503) 517−8204 Email: courtney@farlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis A. Santiago Holland & Knight, LLP 2300 US Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 503−243−2300 Fax: 503−241−8014 Email: serve.las@hklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/07/2002
11/07/2002
11/07/2002 11/07/2002

# Docket Text
1 Complaint (filed as Class Action Complaint For Discrimination In Hiring, Denial of Veterans Preference, And Failure To Provide A Fair Process For Hiring Federal Employees) Filing Fee collected. Receipt #: 447135 issued. Filed by Mary Coco, Dana Curry, Robert Hein, Katherine Powell, Sheena Reis, Karen Sharr against Department of Transportation, NCS Pearson, Inc.. (tomg, ) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
2 Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order and Notice of Case Assignment: Case assigned to the Honorable John Jelderks. Discovery to be completed by 3/10/2003. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report due by 4/7/2003. Pretrial Order due by 4/7/2003. (tomg, ) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
3 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Filed by all plaintiffs. (tomg, ) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
4 Memorandum in Support Of Motion For Preliminary Injunction. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 3 ) (tomg, ) (Entered: 11/07/2002)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 29 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

11/18/2002 11/18/2002 11/19/2002 11/19/2002 11/21/2002
11/21/2002
11/25/2002 11/26/2002 11/26/2002 11/26/2002 11/27/2002
12/02/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/06/2002
12/12/2002

6 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion # 3 . for a Preliminary Injunction (Show Cause). Filed by Department of Transportation. (gm, ) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
7 Declaration of John G. Knepper in support. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 6 ) (gm, ) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
5 Notice of Case Reassignment: Case reassigned from Judge John Jelderks to Judge Robert E. Jones. (gm) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
8 Declaration of John G. Knepper in support (original signature). Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 6 ) (gm, ) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: (Related Doc # 3 ) A Hearings Shall take place upon the 11th day of December at 9:00 o'clock am in Courtoom #16 of the United States Couthouse in Portland, Oregon to determine whether the preliminary injunction should issue. Signed on 11/20/02 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (mja, ) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
13 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order −− Defendant's unopposed motion [#6] for extension of time is granted as follows: Defendant is to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 11/26/2002. (Related documents(s) 3 ) Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (mja, ) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
14 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injuction REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 3 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
10 Return of Service (Federal Defendant) Executed upon John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney general on 11/8/02. Filed by all plaintiffs. (tomg, ) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
11 Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For A Preliminary Injunction. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 3 ) (tomg, ) (Entered: 11/29/2002)
12 Declaration of In Support Of Defendant's Response To Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 11 ) (tomg, ) (Entered: 11/29/2002)
15 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order Regarding Preliminary Injunction Hearing: At the hearing set for December 11, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., the court will hear plaintiff's prima facie case. The court will Schedule a hearing on the defense case at a later date. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (mja, ) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
16 Motion for Extension of Time and Request for Expedited Consideration. Filed by Mary Coco, Dana Curry, Robert Hein, Katherine Powell, Sheena Reis, Karen Sharr. (mja, ) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
17 Declaration of of Elizabeth B. Kolmstetter Ph.D. with her Original Signature.. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 12 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
18 Motion to Dismiss for Fulure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant to FED.R.CIV. 12(b)(6) REQUSET FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (mja, ) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
19 Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 18 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
20 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order −− Plaintiff's Motion [#16] for an extension of time and for a reset of hearing is GRANTED as follows: Plaintiff's Reply is due by 12/23/2002. Hearing on Plaintiff's Prima Facie case set for 12/11/02, is stricken and reset to 1/10/2003 at 01:30PM Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (mja, ) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
21 Motion for Extension of Time to file response to defendant's Rule l2(b) motion to dismiss until January 31,2003. Expediated Consideration Requested. Filed by all plaintiffs. (md, ) (Entered: 12/13/2002)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 30 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/12/2002 12/12/2002
12/12/2002 12/16/2002
12/16/2002
12/16/2002
12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002

22 Affidavit of Lori K. DeBobbleaere in support of motion for extension of time. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 21 , 3 ) (md, ) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
23 Memorandum in Support in support of motion for extension of time to file response to defendant's Rule l2(b) motion. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 21 ) (md, ) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
24 Certificate of Service of motion for extension of time, memo in support and affidavit. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 21 ) (md, ) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
25 Memorandum of Law in Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and Request for Expedited Consideration. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 21 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
26 Affidavit of Courtney Dippel in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time and Expedited Consideration. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 25 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
27 CIVIL MINUTES: Plaintiffs' motion [#21] for extension of time to file their response to defendant NCS Pearson's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to 1/31/03. Hearing on Plaintiffs' prima facie case set for 1/10/03, is RESET to 1/9/03 at 9:00 am. (Related documents(s) 21 ) Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (mja, ) (Entered: 12/18/2002)
28 Reply to Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injuction. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 4 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
29 Affidavit of Gloria R. Aguirre. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
30 Affidavit of Hector H. Aguirre. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
31 Affidavit of Amie L. Baledge. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
32 Affidavit of George Beck. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
33 Affidavit of Emma Bradford. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
34 Affidavit of Don Buell. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
35 Affidavit of Bong Hui Burke. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
36 Affidavit of Mary Coco. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
37 Affidavit of Dana Curry. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
38 Affidavit of Dominic Damiani. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
39 Affidavit of Gail Dixon. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
40 Affidavit of Sherrell Dizer. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
41 Affidavit of Russell Dooley. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
42 Affidavit of Karen Sue Dutter. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
43 Affidavit of Usar Einart. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 31 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002

44 Affidavit of Sandra Espinoza. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
45 Affidavit of Leroy Fich. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
46 Affidavit of Amanda Fleming. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
47 Affidavit of Michaela Fogerty. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
48 Affidavit of Leah Garcia. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
49 Affidavit of Conchita Haddenham. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
50 Affidavit of Robert Hein. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
51 Affidavit of Cheri Helgeson. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
52 Affidavit of Josephine Hill. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
53 Affidavit of Leonard Hughes. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
54 Affidavit of Troy Jones. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
55 Affidavit of Sharon Joslin. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
56 Affidavit of Krystyna Korfanty. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
57 Affidavit of Peter LaCosta. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
58 Affidavit of Faith Malcolm. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
59 Affidavit of Robert Marssdorf. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
60 Affidavit of Janette Moldenhauer. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
61 Affidavit of Linda Ocampa. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
62 Affidavit of Kathyn Powell. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
63 Affidavit of Terry Ann Pullen. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
64 Affidavit of Belem Shankle. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
65 Affidavit of Beth Randall. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
66 Affidavit of Karen Sharr. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
67 Affidavit of Dennis Sparks. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 32 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 01/02/2003 01/02/2003 01/06/2003 01/06/2003 01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/09/2003 01/09/2003
01/23/2003 01/23/2003
01/23/2003
01/28/2003 01/30/2003

68 Affidavit of Bruce Strange. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
69 Affidavit of Dianna Thorkildson. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
70 Affidavit of Amber Vogel. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
71 Affidavit of Yunie Yun. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
72 Affidavit of Natalia Zhikhareva. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
73 Supplemental Complaint. Filed by Mary Coco, Dana Curry, Robert Hein, Katherine Powell, Sheena Reis, Karen Sharr against all defendants. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
74 Supplemental Affidavit of Karen Sharr. Filed by Mary Coco, Dana Curry, Robert Hein, Katherine Powell, Sheena Reis, Karen Sharr. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
75 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint and for Expedited Consideration. Filed by all plaintiffs. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
76 Second Supplemental Affidavit of of Karen Sharr. Filed by all plaintiffs. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
77 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) & (6). Filed by all defendants. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
78 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s) 77 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
79 Certificate of Compliance. Filed by all plaintiffs. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
80 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [#3]:Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental complaint [#75] is granted. Plaintiffs presented evidence, including witness testimony, on their prima facie case in support of a preliminary injunction. After considering the parties'arguments and the evidence, plaintiffs' motion (#3) is denied on the ground that plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits. Plaintiffs' supplemental state law claim is under advisement pending further briefing. Plaintiffs shall have two weeks, to 1/23/03, to file their brief; defendants shall have two additional weeks, to 2/6/03, to respond. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. Counsel Present for Plaintiff: Don S> Willner and Lori DeDobbelaere. Counsel Present for Defendant: John C. Knepper, Marsha Edney, Louis A. Santiago and Courtney Dippel. Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/12/2003)
81 Memorandum re: Oregon Civil Rights Statute. Filed by all plaintiffs. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
82 First Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be granted Pursuant to FED.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) & (6) Based on Plaintiffs' Supplemental State Law Claims REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (mja, ) Modified on 1/27/2003 (mja, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
83 Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be granted Pursuant to FED.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) & (6) Based on Plaintiffs' Supplemental State Law Claims. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 82 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
84 Motion for Leave to File Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Filed as: Motions Concerning Pleadings and Request for Expedited Consideration). Filed by all plaintiffs. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
85 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order −− Plaintiffs' motions concerning pleadings (# 84) is granted as follows: Plaintiffs' state law allegations inconnection with their motion for preliminary injunction (# 3) will be taken under advisement on

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 33 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/21/2003 02/21/2003 02/21/2003 02/21/2003 02/21/2003

2/6/03.Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint within 20 days of the court's ruling on the remainingpreliminary injunction issues. Defendants shall have 20 days after plaintiffs file the amended complaint inwhich to renew or amend the pending motions to dismiss or to file additional motions. Plaintiffs shall have20 days to respond to motions; replies, if any, shall be filed within 14 days. Defendants' motions andamended motions to dismiss (# 18, 77, 82) will be held in abeyance. A hearing date will be set whenbriefing is complete. (Related documents(s) 18 , 77 , 82 , 84 , 3 ) Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
86 Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's Memorandum re: Oregon Civil Rights Statute. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 81 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
87 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Based on State Law) (Request for Oral Argument). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 3 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
88 Declaration of of Thomas D. Joyce in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 87 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
89 Declaration of Stephen R. Greenfield in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 87 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
90 Declaration of Susan V. Nelson in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 87 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
91 Declaration of Kym LaGattuta in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 87 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
92 Declaration of Stephen Maier in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 87 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
93 Declaration of Jean McMahon in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 87 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
94 Declaration of Patience Coker in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 87 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
95 Notice of Original Signature Page of Declaration of Susan V. Nelson in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction(Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 90 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
96 Notice of Original Signature Page of Declaration of Kym La Gattuta in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction(Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 91 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
97 Notice of Original Signature Page of Declaration of Patience Coker in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction(Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 94 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
98 Notice of Original Signature Page of Declaration of Thomas D. Joyce in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction(Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 88 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
99 Notice of Original Signature Page of Declaration of Jean McMahon in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction(Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 93 ) (dls, ) (Entered:

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 34 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/21/2003 02/24/2003 02/26/2003 03/03/2003 03/06/2003 03/11/2003 03/24/2003
04/08/2003 04/10/2003 04/17/2003 05/08/2003 05/08/2003 05/12/2003

02/24/2003)
100 Notice of Original Signature Page of Declaration of Stephen Greenfield in support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for aPreliminary Injunction(Based on State Law). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 89 ) (dls, ) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
101 Notice of Original Signature page of declaration of Stephen Maier in support of memo in opposition to plaintiff's motion for prel.injunction (based on state law).Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (md, ) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
102 Corporate Disclosure Statement. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (md, ) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
103 Opinion and Order: Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injuction [#3] is DENIED. by Judge Robert E. Jones. Signed 3/3/03 (Related document(s) 3 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
104 Unopposed Motion for Order to Stay Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (mja, ) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
105 RECORD OF ORDER:Order Granting Motion to stay discovery and pretrial deadlines (Related Doc # 104 ). See formal minute entry. . (ljl, ) (Entered: 03/13/2003)
106 Second Amended Complaint for Discrimination in Hiring Under Oregon and Federal Civil Rights Acts; Denial of Veterans Preference; and Failure to Provide a Fair Process for Hiring Federal Employees. Filed by Natalia Zhikhareva, Diana Wadley, Dianna Thorkildson, Ivana Tarabochia, Robert Tappert, Stanley Strong, Janise Stoltz, Trish Stith, Belem Shankle, Remy Scott, Bibi Sahibdeen−Southard, Roberta Rylander, Jenina Ramos, Larry Pullen, John Pridemore, Mary Otnes, Gheorghe Onescu, Linda Ocampo, Jeannette Moldenhauer, Dennis Minzghor, Chris Meyer, Joshua Meisenheimer, Faith Malcolm, Barbara Ann Lugo, Karen Letcher, Barbara Kloulechad, Krystyna Korfanty, Roger Karr, Sharon Joslin, Troy Jones, Leonard Hughes, Myrna Hipp, Josephine Hill, Mary Ann Hernandez, Cheri Helgeson, Rachel Hayes, Gerald Handegard, Conchita Haddenham, Velma Gunn, David Greenman, Nikki Goon, Irena Gawlowicz, Lea Garcia, Melinda Gammage, Michaela Fogerty, Amanda Fleming, Leroy Fich, Sandra Espinoza, Usar Einert, Karen Dutter, Russell Dooley, Gail Dixon, Judith Detner, Nathan Deceaser, William Damron, Dominic Damiani, Charles Craig Jr., Shannon Cooper, Ruth Conner, Bong Hui Burke, Don Buell, Elia Brimer, Emma Bradford, Hannah Beck, George Beck, Jeff Bateman, Amy Baledge, Jennifer Armon, Jennifer Anderson, Hector Aguirre, Gloria Aguirre against Department of Transportation, NCS Pearson, Inc.. (kw, ) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
107 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Filed by all defendants. (mja, ) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
108 CIVIL MINUTES: Defendants' unopposed motion [#107] for an extension of time is granted as follows: Defendants' response to plaintiffs' second amended complaint is due 5/14/03. by Judge Robert E. Jones. (Related documents(s) 106 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
109 Notice of Original Signature Page of Marsha Edney for Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 107 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 04/17/2003)
110 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6); Request for Oral Argument. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (kw, ) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
111 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) & (6). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 110 ) (kw, ) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
112 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (filed by Defendant Tom Ridge, Defendant Secretary of Homeland Security). Filed by Department of Transportation. (kw, ) (Entered: 05/13/2003)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 35 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

05/12/2003
05/12/2003
05/28/2003 05/28/2003
05/30/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/24/2003 07/03/2003 07/03/2003 07/09/2003 08/05/2003
08/27/2003 08/27/2003 08/27/2003

113 Memorandum in Support of Defendant Tom Ridge's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (filed by Defendant Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security). Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 112 ) (kw, ) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
114 Declaration of Arlene Austin in Support of Defendant Tom Ridge's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (filed by Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security). Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 112 ) (kw, ) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
115 Motion for Extension of Time. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 112 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
116 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order −− before Judge Robert E. Jones. Plaintiffs' motion (#115) for extension of time is granted as follows: Plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion (#110) to dismiss of defendant Pearson and defendants' motion (#112) to dismiss of defendant Ridge is due 6/19/03.. (Related documents(s) 110 , 112 , 115 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
117 Notice of Complaince. Re:(Related document(s) 115 ) Filed by Plaintiffs (mja, ) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
118 Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Second Amended Complaint (Expedited Consideration Requested). Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
119 Affidavit of Don S. Willner in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
120 Response to Motion to Dismiss (Oral Argument Requested). Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related motion(s) 77 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
121 Affidavit of Karen Sharr in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
122 Certificate of Service. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
123 ORDER:Record of Order: Granting Motion for Leave to file supplement to second amended complaint.(Related Doc # 118 ) by Judge Robert E. Jones. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
124 Reply to Motion Reply in Support of Defendant Tom Ridge's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Filed by all defendants. (Related motion(s) 77 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
125 Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (Oral Argument Requested). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 112 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
126 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order by Judge Robert E. Jones: Oral Argument set for 8/4/2003 at 01:30PM on Pearson & Ridge's Motions to Dismiss. (Related documents(s) 110 , 112 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
127 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order by Judge Robert E. Jones: Setting Oral Argument for 8/27/2003 at 09:00AM in Courtroom 14B on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss & Defendant Ridge's Motion to Dismiss. (Related documents(s) 110 , 112 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
128 Affidavit of Don S Willner Enclosing Documents. Filed by all plaintiffs. (dls, ) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
129 Affidavit of Janette M Moldenhauer. Filed by all plaintiffs. (dls, ) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
130 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Hearing: Defendants' motions to dismiss (## 110, 112) are granted with prejudice as to plaintiffs' ATSA claim (Second Amended Complaint, ? D. 26), plaintiffs' claim against TSA under the Oregon Civil Rights Act (Second Amended Complaint, ? D. 28), and plaintiffs' claim against TSA under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Second Amended Complaint, ? D. 27), and otherwise are denied. Within 14 days, plaintiffs shall provide the court with copies of all EEOC or similar

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 36 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

09/08/2003 09/10/2003 09/11/2003 10/08/2003 10/14/2003
11/04/2003 11/05/2003
12/15/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/24/2003

filings made by plaintiffs. Discovery shall proceed on the limited issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, but shall not include discoveryconcerning futility of exhaustion at this time. Counsel Present for Plaintiff: Don Willner and Lori DeDobbelaere. Counsel Present for Defendant: Louis Santiago, Carlton Greene, Marsha Edney, and Thomas Sarisky. Court Reporter: Paula Tieger. (dls, ) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
132 Affidavit of Don S. Willner. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
131 Transcript of Proceedings held on 8/27/03 before Judge Robert E. Jones. Court Reporter: Paula D. Tieger. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
133 Supplemental Affidavit of Don Willner. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
134 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines Tom Ridge's Unopposed Motion for a Scheduling Order. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
135 ORDER:Order: Granting Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines (Related Doc # 134 ); Discovery to be completed by 11/3/2003. Dispositive Motions due by 11/24/2003. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 12/15/2003. Replies to Dispositive Motions due by 1/16/2004. Signed on 10/14/03 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (Related documents(s) 134 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
136 Unopposed Motion for Order Unopposed Motion for a Revised Scheduling Order. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
137 CIVIL MINUTES: Order by Judge Robert E. Jones: Granting Defendants Unopposed Motion for a Revised Scheduling Order. Dispositive Motions due by 12/15/2003. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 1/15/2004. Replies to Dispositive Motions due by 1/30/2004. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
138 Motion for Extension of Time to File Tom Ridge's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
139 Declaration of Ronald K. Silver in support of Motion for Extension of Time to File Defendant Ridge's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 138 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
140 Motion for Summary Judgment (Oral Argument Requested). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
141 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 140 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
142 Concise Statement of Material Fact in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
143 Affidavit of Louis Santiago in support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 140 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
144 Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
145 Memorandum in Support of Defendant Tom Ridge's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 144 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
146 Concise Statement of Material Fact in Support of Defendant Tom Ridge's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
147 Declaration of Carlton E. Greene. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 144 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
150 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion # 144 , 140 . for Summary Judgment. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 37 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/29/2003 12/29/2003 12/30/2003 01/16/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004 01/26/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 01/29/2004
02/06/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
02/10/2004

148 Declaration of Philip D. Hepperle w/his Original Signature. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
149 Declaration of Carlton E. Greene w/his Original Signature. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
151 ORDER:Record of Order: Granting # 150 )Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion # 140 , 144 . Response due by 1/20/2004. by Judge Robert E. Jones. (Related documents(s) 140 , 144 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
152 Second Motion for Extension of Time. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
153 Notice Updating Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax and New Email of Attorney for Plaintiffs. Filed by all plaintiffs. (rtrb, ) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
157 Notice of Address Change from Willner & Associates. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
178 Affidavit of Don S. Willner. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
154 Motion for Leave to File Additions to Memorandum in Response to Summary Judgment (Expedited Consideration). Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
155 Response to Pearson Concise Statement of Undisputed Facts. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
156 Certificate of Service. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 154 , 155 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
158 ORDER:Record of Order: Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time (Related Doc # 152 ). Response to Motion for Summary Judgment is due 1/26/04 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
159 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order by Judge Robert E. Jones. Defendants' reply to motions (#140, 144) for summary judgment is due 2/9/04. Hearing on Motions (#140, 144) for summary judgment is set for 3/16/04, at 9:00 a.m., Courtroom 10A. (rtrb, ) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
160 Motion to Strike Affidavits, Exhibits and Portions of Plaintiffs' Response to Concise Statement of Facts REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (mja, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
161 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (Three Day Extension). Filed by Department of Transportation. (mja, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
162 Declaration of Carlton E. Greene in Support of Defendant Tom Ridge's Unopposed Motion for a Three−Day Extension. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 161 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
163 Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Concise Statement of Facts. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (mja, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
164 Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s) 140 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
165 Motion for Extension of Time re: Motion to Strike. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 160 ) (mja, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
166 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order by Judge Robert E. Jones −− Defendant Ridge's unopposed motion [#161] for an extension of time is granted as follows: Defendant's reply in support of his motion for summary judgment is due 2/12/04. Defendant Person's motion [#160] to strike will be under advisement on 3/16/04. (mja, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
167 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order by Judge Robert E. Jones: Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Related Doc # 165 ): Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant Pearson's Motion to Strike is due 3/1/2004. (gm) (Entered: 02/13/2004)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 38 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/12/2004 02/12/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004 03/01/2004 03/04/2004 03/16/2004 03/25/2004 03/30/2004
04/08/2004 04/19/2004 05/20/2004

168 Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related motion(s) 144 ) (gm, ) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
169 Declaration of Carlton E. Greene in Support (Not an Original Signature). Filed by Department of Transportation. (Related document(s) 168 ) (gm, ) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
170 Declaration of Filing of the Original Declaration of Carlton E. Greene in Support of Defendants Reply in Support of Defendant Ridge's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
171 Declaration of Filing of the Orginal Declaration of Carlton E. Greene in Support of Defendant Ridge's Unopposed Motion for a Three−Day Extension. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
172 Plaintiffs Response to Defendant Pearson's Motion to Strike Request for Oral Argument 160 . Filed by all plaintiffs. Reply due by 3/15/2004 for 160 ,. (rtrb, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Proceedings: . Hearing on motions for summary judgmnet is reset from 3/16/2004 to for 3/30/2004 at 09:00AM in Portland in Courtroom 10A before Judge Robert E. Jones. Robert E. Jones presiding. (rtrb, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
173 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal as to Plaintiff Janette Moldenhauer. Filed by all plaintiffs. (rtrb, ) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
174 Plaintiffs Response to the Summary Judgment Motions of both Defendants (Oral Argument Requested) 140 , 154 , 144 . Filed by all plaintiffs. Reply due by 4/8/2004. (Originally filed on 1−27−04)(rtrb, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
175 ORDER: Record Of Order by Judge Robert E. Jones: Granting in Part Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment 140 ; Granting Motion for Summary Judgment 144 and Defendant Ridge is dismissed with prejudice on grounds of plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remendies and field preemption; Denying Motion to Strike 160 . Summary judgment is granted to Defendant NCS Pearson with respect to plaintiff's federal claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and constitutional due process, and state claims under the Oregon Civil Rights Act. Summary judgment is denied with respect to plaintiffs' claims of federal liability against NCS Pearson in the role of an employment agency under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADEA, and the ADA. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint alleging claims against only defendant NCS Pearson as an employment agency under federal law. The discovery cut−off date is extended to six months after plaintiffs file the amended complaint. Depositions shall be limited to no more than three hours each. (tomg, ) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
176 Transcript of Proceedings held on 3/30/04 before Judge Robert E. Jones. (tomg, ) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
177 RECORD OF ORDER: by Judge Robert E. Jones. Granting Motion for Extension of Time to file Tom Ridge's motion for summary judgment 138 ; Granting Motion for Leave to file additions 154 . (tomg, ) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
179 Third Amended Complaint.Filed by Gloria Aguirre, Hector Aguirre, Jennifer Anderson, Jennifer Armon, Amie Baledge, Jeff Bateman, George Beck, Hannah Beck, Emma Bradford, Don Buell, Bong Hui Burke, Mary Coco, Ruth Conner, Shannon Cooper, Charles Craig Jr., Dana Curry, Dominic Damiani, William Damron, Nathan Deceaser, Judith Detner, Gail Dixon, Russell Dooley, Karen Dutter, Usar Einert, Sandra Espinoza, Leroy Fich, Amanda Fleming, Michaela Fogerty, Melinda Gammage, Leah Garcia, Irena Gawlowicz, Nikki Goon, David Greenman, Velma Gunn, Conchita Haddenham, Gerald Handegard, Rachel Hayes, Robert Hein, Cheri Helgeson, Mary Ann Hernandez, Josephine Hill, Myrna Hipp, Leonard Hughes, Troy Jones, Sharon Joslin, Roger Karr, Barbara Kloulechad, Krystyna Korfanty, Karen Letcher, Lyle Lott, Barbara Ann Lugo, Faith Malcolm, Joshua Meisenheimer, Chris Meyer, Dennis Minzghor, Linda Ocampo, Gheorghe Onescu, Mary Otnes, John Pridemore, Terry Pullen, Jenina Ramos, Sheena Reis, Sheena Reis, Roberta Rylander, Bibi Sahibdeen−Southard, Remy Scott, Belem Shankle, Karen Sharr, Trish Stith, Janise Stoltz, Stanley Strong, Robert Tappert, Ivana Tarabochia, Dianna Thorkildson, Diana Wadley, Natalia Zhikhareva against Department of Transportation, NCS

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 39 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

05/27/2004 06/01/2004 06/24/2004 06/28/2004 06/29/2004 07/27/2004 07/28/2004 08/03/2004 08/03/2004 08/09/2004
08/24/2004
09/13/2004 09/15/2004

Pearson, Inc..(tomg, ) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
180 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
181 ORDER: Record of Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones: Granting Motion for Extension of Time 180 ; Defendants response to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint is due 7/1/04. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
182 Proposed Form of Order Submitted Protective Order. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Santiago, Louis) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
183 Protective Order. Signed on 6/28/04 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
184 Answer to Amended Complaint (Third) and Affirmative Defenses. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
186 Motion for Conference with the Court to Discuss Discovery; Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Request for Production, Interrogatories & Requests for Admissions; & Request for Expedited Consideration. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
185 Response to Motion for Conference with the Court to Discuss Discovery; Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Request for Production, Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Santiago, Louis) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
187 Notice of Association of Attorneys & Withdrawal of Attorney Lori K. DeDobbelaere has been replaced as attorney of record.. Filed by Mary Ellen Page Farr, David D. Park appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs. Don Wilner to remain as lead Plaintiffs' attorney.(Kirk, ) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
188 Reply to Defendants' Response to Motion for Conference with the Court to Discuss Discovery; Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Requests for Production, Interrogatories & Requests for Admissions; & Request for Expedited Consideration 186 . Filed by all plaintiffs.(Kirk, ) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
189 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Conference with the Court to Discuss Discovery; Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Request for Production, Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions (#186) is granted in part. The court orders a discovery conference to be held on 8/24/04 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10A for three hours. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd, ) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
190 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Discovery Conference: The court ordered each plaintiff to notify plaintiffs' counsel orally or in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. on 9/10/2004 that they are either in or out of the case. Plaintiffs' counsel will report to the court in writing on 9/13/2004 by 5:00 p.m. which plaintiffs will continue with the case.All outstanding requests by both sides for production, requests for admissions and interrogatories are stayed. A discovery conference hearing is scheduled for 9/15/2004 at 09:00AM in Judge Jones' settlement conference room to identify remaining plaintiffs and plan preliminary depositions of plaintiffs. Don S. Willner, David D. Park and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Louis A. Santiago and Courtney C. Dippel present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter or Tape No.: Jan C. Harrie (Teach Reporting). Robert E. Jones presiding. (ecp, ) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
191 Affidavit of Mary Ellen Page Farr Regarding Status of Plaintiffs. Filed by all plaintiffs. (dmd, ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
192 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Discovery Conference: Plaintiffs submitted a final list of participants in the case pursuant to the court's August 24, 2004, order. Defendant will prepare an order dismissing those plaintiffs formerly involved but not on the final list. Discovery of documents collected by NCS Pearson then submitted to the TSA is limited to documents concerning NCS Pearson's work in the Oregon hiring process and the corresponding time period when that process occurred. Further, discovery requests relating to any statistical analysis for discrimination is limited to the Oregon

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 40 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

09/21/2004 09/21/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004 09/28/2004 10/15/2004
10/19/2004 10/29/2004 11/01/2004 11/03/2004
11/15/2004 11/16/2004
11/19/2004 11/23/2004 11/23/2004 11/29/2004

hiring process and not the hiring process occurring nationally. The court GRANTS THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLING 90 DAYS FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2004. THE DEADLINE FOR DISCOVERY IS JANUARY 31, 2005. NO ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY DEADLINE WILL BE ALLOWED. The court will allow plaintiffs to file a fourth amended complaint within 30 days specifying the discrimination claims of each individual plaintiff. Discovery to be completed by 1/31/2005. Amended Complaint due 10/15/2004. y Judge Robert E. Jones, presiding. (dmd, ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
193 Proposed Form of Order Submitted of Dismissal as to Certain Plaintiffs. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
194 Proposed Form of Order Submitted of Involuntary Dismissal as to Plaintiff David Greenman. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
195 Order of Dismissal as to Certain Plaintiffs. Signed on 09/23/04 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd, ) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
196 Order of Involuntary Dismissal as to Plaintiff David Greenman. Signed on 09/23/04 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd, ) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
197 Stipulated Proposed Form of Order Submitted for New Case Caption. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
198 Stipulated Order for New Case Caption. (See 2−page Order for details). Signed on 09/28/04 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd, ) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
199 Fourth Amended Complaint for Discrimination (Gender, Age, Race, National Origin, Disability). Jury Trial Demanded. Filed by all plaintiffs against NCS Pearson, Inc..(dmd, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
200 Plaintiffs' Motion to File Fifth Amended Complaint. Oral Argument Requested. Filed by all plaintiffs. (dmd, ) (Entered: 10/21/2004)
201 Answer to Amended Complaint (Fourth) and Affirmative Defenses. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Santiago, Louis) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
202 Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to File Fifth Amended Complaint 200 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(dmd, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
203 RECORD OF STATUS CONFERENCE: Order Granting Motion to File Amended Complaint/Petition 200 . The third claim for relief, Intentional Interference with Contract, and fourth claim for relief, Defamation, are stricken. (See 1−page order for details). Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd, ) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
204 Fifth Amended Complaint for Discrimination. Jury Trial RequestedFiled by Gloria Aguirre against NCS Pearson, Inc..(dmd, ) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
205 RECORD OF ORDER: Based on the court's ORDER OF 11/3/04 203 , the Intentional Interference with Contract and Defamation claims for relief are stricken from Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint for Discrimination (#204), FILED 11/15/04. Plaintiffs may move, with supporting memoranda, to reinstate those claims. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones, 11/16/04. (dmd, ) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
206 Mail Returned: Sent to John G. Knepper, returned as undeliverable. (dmd, ) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
207 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
208 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Intentional Interference with Economic Relations Claim. Filed by plaintiffs. (dmd, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
209 RECORD OF ORDER: Defendant's Unopposed Motion (#207) for Extension of Time is GRANTED as follows: Defendant's response to plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint will be due 10 days after the court has ruled on plaintiffs' Motion (#208) for reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 41 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/06/2004
12/06/2004
12/06/2004 12/06/2004 12/07/2004
12/08/2004
12/09/2004 12/16/2004 12/17/2004 12/20/2004 12/20/2004 12/20/2004 12/21/2004 12/21/2004
01/03/2005 01/07/2005

210 Declaration of Louis A. Santiago Regarding the Plaintiffs Who Have Failed to Comply with the Court's November 3, 2004 Order Directing the Submission to Defendant of Signed Privacy Act Authorizations. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Order on motion to amend/correct, 203 .)(Santiago, Louis) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
211 Proposed Form of Order Submitted of Involuntary Dismissal as to Plaintiffs Amie Baledge, Nathan DeCeasar, Myrna Hipp, Troy Jones, Jr., Barbara Kloulechad, Janette Moldenhauer and Remy Scott. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Santiago, Louis) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
212 Response regarding Tortious Intentional Interference with Economic Relations Claim to Motion for Reconsideration 208 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
213 Declaration of Louis A. Santiago in Support of Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 212 .)(Santiago, Louis) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
214 Declaration of Louis A. Santiago Regarding the Plaintiffs Who Have Failed to Comply with the Court's November 3, 2004, Order Directing the Submission to Defendant of Signed Privacy Act Authorizations. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (dmd, ) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
Order for Administrative Correction of the Record. A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record. (Declaration received without electronic filing notice attached; docketed as #214, a duplicate of electronic filing #210). In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), the Clerk is directed to make the following administrative corrections to the record and to notify all parties accordingly. (dmd, ) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
215 Order of Involuntary Dismissal as to Plaintiffs Amie Baledge, Nathan DeCeasar, Myrna Hipp, Troy Jones, Jr., Barbara Kloulechad, Janette Moldenhauer, Remy Scott. Signed on 12/8/04 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd, ) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
216 Reply Memorandum to Motion for Reconsideration 208 . Filed by plaintiffs.(dmd, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
217 ORDER: Granting Motion for Reconsideration 208 . (See 7−page Order for details). Signed on 12/17/04 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd, ) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
218 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Breach of Contract Claim. Filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 # 2) (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
219 Memorandum in Support. Filed by all defendants. (Dippel, Courtney) Modified on 12/21/2004 (dmd, ). (Entered: 12/20/2004)
220 Motion to Dismiss Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel in Support. Filed by all defendants. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
221 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel in Support. Filed by all defendants. (Dippel, Courtney) Modified on 12/21/2004 (dmd, ). (Entered: 12/21/2004)
Order for Administrative Correction of the Record. A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record. Docket ##s 219 and 221 were incorrectly docketed as Motions to Dismiss. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), the Clerk is directed to make the following administrative corrections to the record and to notify all parties accordingly. Docket entries shall been edited correcting #219 to a Memorandum and #221 to a Declaration. Docket #220 is a duplicate entry. Pending motion status for both #219 and #221 has been terminated. (dmd, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
222 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Dismiss 220 . Filed by plaintiffs. (dmd, ) (Entered: 01/03/2005)
223 RECORD OF ORDER: Plaintiff's motion (#222) for an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is set to be heard 1/18/05, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 10A. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones, 1/7/05. (dmd, ) (Entered: 01/07/2005)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 42 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

01/13/2005 01/19/2005
02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/08/2005 02/14/2005 02/24/2005 03/07/2005 05/05/2005 05/11/2005 05/16/2005
05/18/2005 07/28/2005 07/28/2005 07/29/2005 09/07/2005

224 Response to Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Dismiss 220 222 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
225 RECORD OF HEARING: Plaintiffs' motion (#222) for an extension of time to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is granted. Plaintiffs will file a response on 2/1/05. Defendant's reply will be due by 2/8/05. Plaintiffs will file a Sixth Amended Complaint that excludes the defamation claim and language in the complaint connoting a defamation claim. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones, 1/19/05. (dmd, ) (Entered: 01/20/2005)
226 Notice of Change of Address. Filed by Don S. Willner appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs.(dmd, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
227 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Breach of Contract Claim 218 . Filed by plaintiffs.(dmd, ) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
228 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Breach of Contract Claim 218 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
229 Opinion and Order GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 218 Plaintiffs' Breach of Contract Claims. (See 6−page Opinion and Order for details). Signed on 2/14/05 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (dmd, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
230 Sixth Amended Complaint for Discrimination (Gender, Age, Race, National Origin); Intentional Interference with Employment Contract or Prospective Advantage.Filed by plaintiffs against NCS Pearson, Inc..(dmd, ) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
231 Answer to Amended Complaint (Sixth) and Affirmative Defenses. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Santiago, Louis) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
232 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Order: Telephone status conference is set for 5/16/05, at 10:00 a.m. The court will initiate the call. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones, 5/5/05. (dmd, ) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
233 Transcript of Proceedings (Status Conference), held on 11/3/04, before Judge Robert E. Jones. Court Reporter: Amanda M. LeGore. (dmd, ) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
234 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Proceedings: Telephonic Conference. Discovery is extended for 60 days to 8/1/05 at minimum to accommodate three plaintiffs' depositions to occur and to allow plaintiffs' discovery request to TSA to continue. Dispositive motions will be accepted after plaintiffs' outstanding discovery requests are resolved. Defendant can supplement the questionnaire sent to all plaintiffs with follow−up questionnaires concerning requests for relevant information. No trial date will be set at this time. Don Willner, Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel, Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Jill Erwin. Robert E. Jones presiding. (dmd, ) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
235 Transcript of Proceedings held on 5/16/05 before Judge Robert Jones. Court Reporter: Jill L. Erwin.. (dmd, ) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
236 Joint Motion for Extension of Time of Discovery Deadline. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
237 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel In Support of Joint Motion For Extension of Discovery Deadline. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 236 .)(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
238 RECORD OF ORDER: Joint motion 236 for an extension of the discovery deadline is granted as follows: Discovery is to be completed by 10/3/05. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones, 7/29/05. (dmd, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
239 Motion To Require Defendant's 40(b)(6) Representative to Answer Questions Put to Him or Her Which Are Not Priviledged; Motion to Require Defendant to Produce Claimed Newly Discovered Statistical Data About Protected Class Status of Oregon Applicants and Motion for Court Telephone Conference This Week To Rule Upon These Motions. Request For Expedited Consideration. Filed by all plaintiffs. (ecp, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 43 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

10/03/2005 10/03/2005 10/05/2005 10/19/2005
10/19/2005 11/02/2005 11/03/2005 11/21/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 12/09/2005 12/09/2005

240 Joint Motion For Scheduling Conference to Discuss Extending the Current Discovery Deadline for Limited Purposes. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
241 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel In Support of Joint Motion for Scheduling Conference to Discuss Extending the Current Discovery Deadline for Limited Purposes. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion 240 .)(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
242 RECORD OF ORDER: Motion 240 for scheduling conference is granted as follows: Scheduling conference is set for 10/19/05, at 9:00 a.m. in Chambers, Room 1007. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (ecp, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
243 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Hearing: All pending motions 239 have been resolved, and new dates set. The deadline to complete all discoveryis set for November 21, 2005, to permit defendants to depose four additional plaintiffs. The deadline fordefendant to file pretrial and dispositive motions, including a motion for summary judgment on disparatetreatment claims and preemption issues related to disparate impact claims, is set for December 19, 2005.Plaintiffs shall file their responses by January 19, 2006. Trial of this matter is set to commence on April 3,2006, and continue through April 12, 2006.At the parties' request, this matter has been referred to Judge Edward Leavy for alternative disputeresolution, which is set for November 14, 2005, through November 16, 2005. Mary Ellen Farr and Sarah Drescher present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Bonita Alexander. Robert E. Jones presiding. (ecp, ) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
244 Order Establishing Trial and Pretrial Conference Dates and Procedures. Signed on 10/19/05 by Cindy Schultz, Deputry Clerk. (ecp, ) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
245 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Order by Robert E. Jones. Defendant's oral motion for reset of trial is granted. Eight day jury trial is reset from 4/3/06 to 4/10/2006 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10A. (ljl, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
247 CIVIL MINUTES: In−person conference regarding plaintiffs' motion (#246) to extend discovery and to compel production is set for 11/29/2005, at 9:00 a.m. in Chambers, Room 1007. (ntm, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
246 Motion to Extend Discovery and to Compel Production. Discovery Motion. Oral Argument requested Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
248 Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Discovery and Compel Production Oral Argument requested. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
249 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel in Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Discovery and Compel Production. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 248 .)(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
250 Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Oral Argument requested Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
251 Memorandum in Support Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 250 .)(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
252 Declaration of Courtney C Dippel In Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 250 .)(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
253 Motion to Waive Page Limitation for Non−Discovery Motion Brief and Concise Statements of Material Facts, and to File Documents Under Seal. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
254 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel In Support of Motion to Waive Page Limitation for Non−Discovery Motion Brief and Concise Statements of Material Facts, and to File Documents Under Seal. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 44 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/09/2005 12/12/2005 12/16/2005
12/16/2005
12/20/2005
12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005
12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005

253 .)(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
255 Proposed Form of Order Submitted Granting Motion to Waive Page Limitation for Non−Concise Statement of Material Facts, and to File Documents Under Seal. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
256 ORDER: Signed on 12/12/05 by Judge Robert E. Jones. Granting Motion 253 . (ntm, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
257 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claims −ATSA Preemption Issue Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Oral Argument requested Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
259 Declaration of Stephen Maier In Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claims−ATSA Preemption Issue. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 257 .)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
258 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claims −ATSA Preemption Issue Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 257 .)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
260 Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time to File Pre−Trial and Dispositive Motions. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
261 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel In Support of Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time to File Pre−Trial and Dispositive Motions. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
262 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Disparate Treatment Discrimination, Retaliation and Intentional Interference with Contract Claims Pursuant to Fed R Civ P 56. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Oral Argument requested Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
263 Concise Statement re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
264 Defendant's Concise Statement Common to All Plaintiffs re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
265 Concise Statement Regarding Plaintiff Gloria Aguirre re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
266 Concise Statement Regarding Pl aintiff Hector Aguirre re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
267 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Jennifer Anderson re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
268 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Jeffrey Bateman re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 45 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005

269 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Clarence George Beck re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
270 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Hanna Beck re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
271 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Emma Bradford re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
272 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Donald Buell re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). Modified on 8/8/2011 (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
273 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Mary Coco re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). Modified on 8/8/2011 (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
274 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Ruth Conner re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
275 (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Shannon Cooper re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
276 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Dana Curry re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
277 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Dominic Damiani re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
278 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff William Damron re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
279 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Judith Demeter re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/9/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
280 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Gail Dixon re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/9/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
281 Concise Statement of Material Facts REgarding Plaintiff Russell Dooley re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/9/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
282 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Karen Dutter re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/9/2011: # 1 SEALED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 46 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005

DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
283 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Usar Einert re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/9/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
284 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Sandra Espinoza re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
285 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Leroy Fich re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
286 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Amanda Fleming (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
287 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Melinda Gammage re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
288 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Leah Garcia re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
289 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Irena Gawlowicz re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
290 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Nikki Goon re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
291 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Velma Gunn re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
292 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Conchita Haddenham re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
293 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Gerald Handegard re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
294 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Rachel Hayes re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
295 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Robert Hein re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
296 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Josephine Hill re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 47 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005

UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
297 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Sharon Joslin re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
298 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Roger Karr re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
299 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Krystyna Korfanty re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
300 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Karen Letcher re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
301 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Barbara Lugo re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
302 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Faith Malcolm re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
303 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Joshua Meisenheimer re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
304 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Dennis Mingzhor re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
305 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Linda Ocampo re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
306 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Gheorghe Onsescu re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
307 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Mary Otnes re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
308 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff John Pridemore re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
309 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Terry Pullen re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 48 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005

310 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Jenina Ramos re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
311 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Sheena Reis re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
312 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Roberta Rylander re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
313 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Belem Shankle re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
314 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Karen Sharr re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
315 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Tricia Stith Bateman re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
316 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Janise Stoltz re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
317 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Stanley Strong re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
318 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Robert Tappert re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
319 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Ivana Tarabochia re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
320 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Dianna Thorkildson re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
321 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Diana Wadley re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
322 Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Natalia Zhikareva re Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. *FILED UNDER SEAL* (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/28/2014: # 1 322) (dnt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
323 (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Certificate of Service by NCS Pearson, Inc. re Concise Statement 273 , Concise Statement 276 , Concise Statement 303 , Concise Statement 301 , Concise Statement 292 , Concise Statement 313 , Concise Statement

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 49 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/22/2005 01/03/2006
01/03/2006
01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/09/2006 01/09/2006 01/10/2006
01/19/2006
01/19/2006

286 , Concise Statement 284 , Concise Statement 311 , Concise Statement 280 , Concise Statement 304 , Concise Statement 289 , Concise Statement 306 , Concise Statement 316 , Concise Statement 290 , Concise Statement 318 , Concise Statement 278 , Concise Statement 291 , Concise Statement 268 , Concise Statement 279 , Concise Statement 294 , Concise Statement 295 , Concise Statement 320 , Concise Statement 317 , Concise Statement 269 , Concise Statement 272 , Concise Statement 277 , Concise Statement 264 , Concise Statement 266 , Concise Statement 314 , Concise Statement 283 , Concise Statement 315 , Concise Statement 321 , Motion for Summary Judgment 262 , Concise Statement 270 , Concise Statement 296 , Concise Statement 281 , Concise Statement 293 , Concise Statement 288 , Concise Statement 302 , Concise Statement 299 , Concise Statement 287 , Concise Statement 305 , Concise Statement 282 , Concise Statement 285 , Concise Statement 271 , Concise Statement 312 , Concise Statement 308 , Concise Statement 297 , Concise Statement 267 , Concise Statement 309 , Concise Statement 310 , Concise Statement 263 , Concise Statement 300 , Concise Statement 307 , Concise Statement 319 , Concise Statement 322 , Concise Statement 265 , Concise Statement 298 , Concise Statement 275 , Concise Statement 274 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 12/21/2005)
324 RECORD OF ORDER: Motion (#250) to compel discovery is moot with leave to renew if neccessary. (ntm, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
325 (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Notice of Filing Original Signature Page of Thomas D. Joyce for Declaration of Thomas D. Joyce in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Louis A. Santiago appearing on behalf of NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
326 Notice of Filing Original Signature Page of Joseph A. Orban for Declaration of Joseph A. Orban in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Louis A. Santiago appearing on behalf of NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
327 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Expert Disclosures. Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
328 Affidavit of Mary Ellen Page Farr in Support of Motion. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 327 .)(ntm, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
329 RECORD OF ORDER: Plaintiff's unopposed motion (#327) is granted as follows: The parties are to report to the court by January 13, 2006, as to new proposals for scheduling deadlines. (ntm, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
330 RECORD OF ORDER: Unopposed motion (#260)for extension of time is granted as follows: The deadline for filing pretrial and dispositive motions is 12/20/05. (ntm, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
331 Notice of Filing Original Signature Page of Kym La Gattuta for Declaration in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Louis A. Santiago appearing on behalf of NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 01/10/2006)
332 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 257 as to Plaintiff's Disparate Impact Claims − ATSA Preemption Issue and Request for Oral Argument. FILED UNDER SEAL. Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
333 Motion to Strike a Portion of the Maier Declaration, 259 Dealing with the ATSA Preemption Issue. Request that this motion be heard at the same time as Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ATSA preemption issue. Oral Argument requested. FILED UNDER SEAL. Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (DOCUMENT

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 50 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

01/19/2006 01/20/2006
01/20/2006
01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/30/2006 01/30/2006 01/30/2006 02/01/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/07/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006

FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
334 Declaration of Don S. Wilner. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
335 Notice of Filing Original Signature Page of Stephen Maier for Declaration of Stephen Maier in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claims−ATSA Preemption Issue. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Louis A. Santiago appearing on behalf of NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Declaration, 259 .)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 01/23/2006)
336 Notice of Filing Original Signature Page of Stephen Maier for Declaration of Stephen Maier in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Sumbitted by Defendant NCS Pearson, Inc.) (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Louis A. Santiago appearing on behalf of NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 01/23/2006)
337 Order of Dismissal as to Mary Ann Hernandez. Signed on 1/25/06 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (ntm, ) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
338 Stipulated Scheduling Order. Signed on 1/25/06 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (ntm, ) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
339 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (ntm, ) (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 01/31/2006)
340 Response to Motion to Strike, 333 Oral Argument requested. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 01/31/2006)
341 Defendant's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claims − ATSA Preemption Issue. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 01/31/2006)
342 RECORD OF ORDER: Hearing is set for 2/21/06, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10A on defendant's motion (#257) for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' disparate impact claims. (ntm, ) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
343 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Disparate Treatment, Retaliation, and Interference with Contract Claims and to File Brief Beyond Page Limitation. Expedited requested. Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
344 Plaintiffs' Unopposed motion (#343) for extension of time is granted as follows: Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' disparate treatment, retaliation, and interference with contract claims, together with supporting materials, are due 2/8/06. (ntm, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
345 Supplemental Record of Order: Pursuant to the agreement contained in plaintiffs' unopposed motion (#343), defendant may have until 2/21/06, to file its reply, if any. (ntm, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
346 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 Oral Argument requested. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
347 Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 51 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006
02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006

348 Declaration of Mary Ellen Page Farr. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
349 Declaration of Don S. Willner. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
350 Motion to Strike all Portions of Depositions and Declarations of Pearson Witnesses not Based Upon Personal Knowledge, or Based on Conclusions; and Motions to Strike Concerning Individual Plaintiffs. Oral Argument requested Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
351 Robert R. Sinclair's Response to Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Robert R. Sinclair. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) Modified on 2/9/2006 (ntm, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
352 Karen Letcher's Response to Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Karen Letcher. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) Modified on 2/9/2006 (ntm, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
353 Krystyna Korfanty's Response to Concise Statement of Material Fact regarding Krystyna Korfanty. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) Modified on 2/9/2006 (ntm, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). Modified on 8/3/2011 (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
354 Velma Gunn's Response to Concise Statement of Material Fact Regarding Velma Gunn. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) Modified on 2/9/2006 (ntm, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
355 Terry Pullen's Response to Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Terry Pullen. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) Modified on 2/9/2006 (ntm, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
356 Jenina Ramos' Response to Defendnat's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Jenina Ramos. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
357 Sheena Reis's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Sheena Reis. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
358 Roberta Rylander's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Roberta Rylander. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
359 Karen Dutter's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Karen Dutter. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
360 Russell Dooley's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Russell Dooley. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
361 Usar Einert's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Usar Einert. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 52 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006

362 Sandra Espinoza's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Sandra Espinoza. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
363 Leroy Fich's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Leroy Fich. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
364 Amanda Fleming's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Amanda Fleming. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
365 Melinda Gammage's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Melinda Gammage. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
366 Leah Garcia's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Leah Garcia. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
367 Irena Gawlowicz's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Irena Gawlowicz. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
368 Nikki Goon'w Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Nikki Goon. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
369 Shannon Cooper Knapp's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Shannon Cooper Knapp. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). Modified on 8/5/2011 (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
370 Barbara Lugo's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Barbara Lugo. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
371 Dominic Damiani's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Dominic Damiani. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
372 John Pridemore's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding John Pridemore. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
373 Dana Curry's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Dana Curry. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
374 Mary Otnes' Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Mary Otnes. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
375 Gheorghe Onescu's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Gheorge Onescu. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 53 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006

DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
376 Linda Ocampo's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Linda Ocampo. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
377 Dennis Minzghor's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Dennis Minzghor. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
378 Joshua Meisenheimer's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Joshua Meisenheimer. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
379 Faith Malcolm's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Faith Malcolm. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
380 Hector Aguirre's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Hector Aguirre. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
381 Gloria Aguirre's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Gloria Aguirre. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
382 Jennifer Anderson's REsponse to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Jennifer Anderson. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
383 Jeffrey Bateman's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Jeffrey Bateman. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
384 Clarence George Beck's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Clarence George Beck. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
385 Emma Bradford's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Emma Bradford. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
386 Hanna Beck's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Hanna Beck. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
387 Roger Karr's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Roger Karr. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
388 Sharon Joslin's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Sharon Joslin. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 54 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006

389 Josephine Hill's Response to Defendasnt's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Josephine Hill. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
390 Robert Hein's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Robert Hein. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
391 Rachel Hayes's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts as to Rachel Hayes. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
392 Gerald Handegard's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Gerald Handegard. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
393 Conchita Haddenham's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts regarding Conchita Haddenham. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
394 William Damrons Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding William Damron. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
395 Judith Detmer's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Judith Detmer. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
396 Gail Dixon's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Gail Dixon. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
397 Belem Shankle's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Belem Shankle. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
398 Karen Sharr's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Karen Sharr. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
399 Trish Stith Bateman's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Trish Stith Bateman. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
400 Janise Stoltz's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Janise Stoltz. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
401 Stanley Strong's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Stanley Strong. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
402 Robert Tappert's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Robert Tappert. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 55 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/13/2006 02/13/2006
02/14/2006 02/15/2006 02/15/2006
02/15/2006 02/16/2006

DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
403 Ivana Tarabochia's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Ivana Tarabochia. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
404 Diana Thorkildson's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Diana Thorkildson. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
405 Natalia Zhikareva's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Natalia Zhikareva. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
406 Ruth Conner's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Ruth Conner. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
407 Donald Buell's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Donald Buell. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
408 Mary Coco's Response to Defendant's Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Mary Coco. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
409 Plaintiffs' Motion to Add Additional Citations to Facts in the Record for Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Disparate Treatment, et al Motion without Changing the Text. Request for Expedited Consideration. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/15/2006)
410 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Memoranda Previously Submitted on the ATSA Preemption Issue with Portions of the Memoranda of Both Parties from the Second Summary Judgment Motion Which Deal with ATSA Preemtion. Request for Expedited Consideration. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 02/15/2006)
414 RECORD OF ORDER: Plaintiffs' motion (#409) to add additional citations to facts in the record and motion (#410) to supplement the memoranda previously submitted are granted. Signed by Judge Robert E. Jones on February 14, 2005. (ntm, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
411 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Disparate Treatment, Retaliation, and Intentional Interference with Contract Claims to Motion for Summary Judgment, 262 . Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
412 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel In Support of Unopposed Motion For Extention of Time to File Reply In Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Disparate Treatment, Retaliation, and Intentional Interference with Contract Claims. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion, 411 .)(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
413 Declaration of Don S. Willner. Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
415 RECORD OF ORDER: Unopposed motion (#411) for extension of time to file reply is granted as follows: Defendant's reply in support of its motion for summary judgment

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 56 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/22/2006 02/24/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006
02/28/2006 02/28/2006
02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006

on plaintiffs' disparate treatment, retaliation, adn intentional interference with contract claims is due 2/28/06. (ntm, ) Modified on 2/21/2006 (ntm, ). (Entered: 02/17/2006)
416 RECORD OF HEARING: Oral argument was heard on defendant's motion for summary judgment (#257) as to preemption of plaintiffs' disparate impact claims, and the motion was taken under advisement. Plaintiffs' motion (#333) to strike a portion of the Maier declaration was GRANTED. See formal opinion and order to follow. (ntm, ) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
417 ORDER: Defendant's motion for summary judgment 257 on plaintiffs' disparate impact claims is granted. Plaintiffs' motion to strike 333 certain testimony of Stephen Maier is granted (see attached formal order for details). Signed on February 23, 2006 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (ntm, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
418 Response to Motion to Strike, 350 Oral Argument requested. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
419 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Common to all Plaintiffs in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
420 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Disparte Treatment, Retaliation, and Interference with Contract Claims Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.56. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
421 Motion to Strike Certain Declarations Submitted by Plaintiffs in Support of Their Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Disparate Treatment Discrimination, Retaliation and Intentional Interference with Contract Claims. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Oral Argument requested Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
422 Motion to Strike All Exhibits Attached to the Declaration of Mary Ellen Page Farr. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Oral Argument requested Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
423 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Responses to the Concise Statements of Fact Common to all Plaintiffs and in Response to the Individual Concise Statemetns of Material Facts for Failure to Articulate Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Denial of Facts. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Oral Argument requested Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
424 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Hanna Beck in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
425 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Emma Bradford in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
426 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Donald Buell in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 57 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006

427 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Mary Coco in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
428 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Ruth Conner in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
429 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Shannon Cooper Knapp in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
430 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Dana Curry in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
431 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff William Damron in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
432 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Dominic Damiani in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
433 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Judith Detmer in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
434 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Gail Dixon in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
435 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Russell Dooley in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
436 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Karen Dutter in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
437 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Usar Einert in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
438 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Sandra Espinoza in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 58 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006

(DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
439 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Leroy Fich in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
440 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Amanda Fleming in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
441 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Melinda Gammage in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
442 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Leah Nicole Garcia in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
443 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Irena Gawlowicz in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) Modified on 3/1/2006 (ntm, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
444 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Nikki Goon in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
445 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Velma Lee Gunn in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
446 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Conchita Haddenham in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
447 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Gerlad Handegard in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
448 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Rachel Anne Hayes in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
449 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Robert J. Hein in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
450 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Josephine Hill in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 59 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006

451 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Sharon Joslin in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
452 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Roger W. Karr in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
453 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Krystyna E. Korfanty in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
454 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Karen Letcher in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
455 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Barbara Ann Lugo in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
456 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Faith Malcolm in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
457 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Joshua Meisenheimer in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
458 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Dennis Minzghor in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
459 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Linda M. Ocampo in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
460 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Gheorge Onescu in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
461 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Mary D. Otnes in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
462 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff John Pridemore in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
463 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Terry Ann Pullen in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt).

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 60 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006

(Entered: 03/02/2006)
464 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Henina Ramos in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
465 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Sheena Reis in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
466 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Roberta Rylander in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
467 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Belem Shankle in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
468 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Karen Sharr in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
469 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Tricia Stith in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
470 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Janise Stoltz in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
471 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Stanley Strong in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
472 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Robert W. Tappert in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
473 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Ivana Tarabochia in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
474 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Dianna Thorkildson in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 61 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 03/02/2006 03/07/2006 03/07/2006 03/09/2006

475 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Diana K. Wadley in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
476 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Natalia Zhikareva in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. FILED UNDER SEAL. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
477 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Clarence George Beck in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
478 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Jeffrey Bateman in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
479 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Jennifer Anderson in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
480 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Hector Aguirre in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
481 Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Concise Statement of Material Facts Regarding Plaintiff Gloria Aguirre in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
482 Transcript of Proceedings held on February 21, 2006 (re: disparate impact) before Judge Robert E. Jones. Court Reporter: Bonita Alexander.. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
495 Plaintiffs' Motions in limine. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
483 Scheduling Order by Robert E. Jones. Rule 16 Conference is set for 3/9/2006 at 01:00PM in Courtroom 10A before Judge Robert E. Jones. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
484 Notice of Filing Original Signature Page of Stephen R. Greenfield for Supplemental Declaration. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Louis A. Santiago appearing on behalf of NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/07/2006)
485 Notice of Filing Original Signature Page of Gerald V. Barrett for First Declaration. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Louis A. Santiago appearing on behalf of NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/4/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). Modified on 8/4/2011 (kt). (Entered: 03/07/2006)
486 MINUTES of Proceedings: Rule 16 Conference. Discussed tentative rulings concerning defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' individual claims. Plaintiffs to submit further briefing/documentation re: plaintiffs who claim subjectivity

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 62 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/17/2006
03/17/2006
03/17/2006
03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006

or manipulation in Phase I testing, and re: vision standards by March 17, 2006; defendant to respond by March 24, 2006. Don S. Willner (Telephonically), David D. Park and Mary Ellen Page Farr` present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Louis A. Santiago and Courtney C. Dippel present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Bridget Montero (telephone 503−326−8192). Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
487 Response to Motion to Strike, 421 Oral Argument requested. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/14/2006)
488 Response to Motion to Strike, 423 Oral Argument requested. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/14/2006)
489 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Strike 422 . (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL)Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/14/2006)
490 Notice of Filing Original Signature Page of Thomas D. Joyce for Declaration of Thomas D. Joyce in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Louis A. Santiago appearing on behalf of NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/17/2006)
491 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Regarding Summary Judgment Motions on Disparate Treatment and Intentional Interference with Economic Advantage. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/17/2006)
492 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum on Defendant's Vicarious Liability for Acts of Comprehensive Health Services. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/17/2006)
493 Transcript of Proceedings held on August 24, 2004 before Judge Robert E. Jones. Court Reporter: Jan C. Harrie (Teach Reporting). (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
494 Transcript of Proceedings held on September 15, 2004 before Judge Robert E. Jones. Court Reporter: Priscilla R. Harris (Teach Reporting). (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
496 Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant's Proposed Deposition Testimony. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
497 Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant's Exhibits. Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
498 Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant's Witness List. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
499 Itemization of Special Damages. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Don S. Willner appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
500 Plaintiff's Trial Memorandum. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
501 Plaintiffs' Exhibit List. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). Modified on 8/5/2011 (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
502 Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Instructions. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 63 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006
03/20/2006
03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006

503 Plaintiffs' Proposed Voir Dire. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
504 Plaintiffs' Witness List. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
505 Plaintiffs' Designations of Deposition Testimony To Be Used At Trial. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 2 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
507 Motion in liminie to Exclude References at Trial to Defendant Being Terminated by the Federal Government or to any Government Investigations of Defendant Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid.402,403.Oral Argument requested. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
508 Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony from Persons Not Parties to This Lawsuit and Who Were at Other Airports and Assessment Centers. Oral Argument requested. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
509 Motion in limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony of Dr. Robert Sinclair Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid.402, 403 and 702. Oral Argument requested. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
510 Motion in limine to Exclude Certain Damage and Other Evidence from Plaintiffs Who Failed to Produce Documentation During Discovery. Oral Argument requested. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
511 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 510 .)(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
512 Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Trial Exhibits. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
513 Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Deposition Designations for Trial. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
514 Request for Jury Instructions for Plaintiffs Pursuing State Law Claims of Intentional Interference with Prospective Employment Relationship. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
515 Proposed Verdict Form for Plaintiff Faith Malcolm for Federal Discrimination Claims. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
516 Request for Jury Instructions for Plaintiffs Faith Malcolm's and Diana Wadley's Federal Discrimination Claims. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
517 Proposed Verdict Forms for Plaintiff Robert Tappert for Federal Discrimination Claim. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
518 Request for Jury Instructions for Plaintiffs Roger Karr's and Robert Tappert's Federal Discrimination Claims. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
519 Proposed Verdict Forms for Plaintiff Roger Karr for Federal Discrimination Claim. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
520 Proposed Verdict Forms for Plaintiff Diana Wadley for Federal Discrimination Claims. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
521 Proposed Verdict Forms for Plaintiffs Pursuing Intentional Interference with Prospective Employment Relationship Claims. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
522 Defendant's List of Proposed Trial Exhibits. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 64 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

03/20/2006
03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/21/2006 03/23/2006
03/23/2006
03/23/2006
03/23/2006
03/23/2006
03/24/2006
03/27/2006 03/28/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006
04/05/2006

523 Defendant's List of Potential Trial Witnesses. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 2 SEALED DOCUMENT, # 3 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
524 Defendant's Designation of Deposition Testimony For Trial. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
525 Defendant's Requested Voir Dire Questions. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
526 Certificate of Service as to Don Wilner Only. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
527 Amended Certificate of Service as to Mary Ellen Page Farr Only. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
528 Transcript of Proceedings held on March 9, 2006 before Judge Robert E. Jones. Court Reporter: Bridget R. Montero. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
529 Notice of Filing of Signed Second Declaration of Ivana Tarabochia. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Don S. Willner appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/23/2006)
530 Notice of Filing of Signed Declaration of Rachel Hayes. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Don S. Willner appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/23/2006)
531 Notice of Filing of Signed Declaration of Debbie Hanners. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Don S. Willner appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/23/2006)
532 Notice of Filing of Signed Declaration of Joshua Meisenheimer. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Don S. Willner appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/23/2006)
533 Notice of Filing of Signed Declaration of Douglas Minzghor. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Don S. Willner appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/23/2006)
534 Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgement Motions. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 03/27/2006)
535 RECORD OF ORDER: Final pretiral conference is reset from 3/27/06, to 4/3/06, at 1:00 p.m. in Chambers of Judge Jones, Room 1007. Ordered by Judge Robert E. Jones. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
536 Opinion and Order. Signed on 3/28/06 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (ntm, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
537 Amended Motion in limine to Exclude Certain Damage and Other Evidence From Plaintiffs Who Failed to Produce Documentation During Discovery. Oral Argument requested Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
538 Declaration of Courtney C. Dippel In Support of Defendants Amended Motion In Limine to Exclude Certain Damage and Other Evidence From Plaintiffs Who Failed to Produce Documentation During Discovery. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 537 .)(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
539 MINUTES of Proceedings: Final Pretrial Conference. David D. Park, Don S. Wilner and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 65 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/10/2006 04/10/2006 04/10/2006 04/10/2006 04/10/2006
04/11/2006
04/12/2006
04/13/2006
04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006
04/17/2006 04/17/2006
04/17/2006

(503−326−8182). Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
540 Amended Exhibit List Defendant's Amended List of Trial Exhibits. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
541 Amended Witness List Defendant's Amended List of Trial Witnesses. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc..(Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
542 Trial Stipulations. Filed by Don S. Willner and Louis Santiago. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
543 Plaintiff's Amended Exhibit List. Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
544 Itemization of Special Damages (amended). Filed by all plaintiffs.(ntm, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
545 Amended Request for Jury Instructions for Plaintiffs Pursuing State Law Claims of Intentional Interference with Prospective Employment Relationship. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
546 MINUTES of Proceedings: First Day of Jury Trial. David D. Park, Don S. Wilner and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca (503−326−8182) and Bonita Alexander (503−326−8188). Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
547 MINUTES of Proceedings: Jury Trial − Day 2 −. (Jury notes attached) David D. Park and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca (503−326−8182). Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
548 MINUTES of Proceedings: Continuation of Court Trial − Day 3 −.David S. Park, Don S. Willner and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca (503−326−8182) and Bonita Alexander (503−326−8188). Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
549 MINUTES of Proceedings: Jury Trial − Day 4 −. David S. Park, Don S. Willner and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca (503−326−8182) and Bonita Alexander (503) 326−8188. Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
550 Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to FRCP 50(a). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
551 Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to FRCP 50(a). Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
553 MINUTES of Proceedings: Jury Trial − Day 5 −. David D. Park, Don S. Wilner and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca (503−326−8182). Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
552 Defendant's Request for Additional Jury Instructions and Use of a Special Verdict. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.(ntm, ) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
554 Plaintiffs' Fed.R.Civ.P.50 Motion for Judgment as to Defendant's Status, or in the Alternative, in Support of Supplemental Request for Jury Instructions. (DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by all plaintiffs. (ntm, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2011: # 1 SEALED DOCUMENT) (kt). (Entered: 04/18/2006)
555 MINUTES of Proceedings: Jury Trial − Day 6 −. David D. Park, Don S. Wilner and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca (503−326−8182) and Bonita Alexander (503−326−8188). Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)

Case 3:02-cv-1513 As of 10/04/2018 08:26 AM PDT Page 66 of 66 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/18/2006 04/18/2006 04/18/2006
04/19/2006
04/19/2006 05/24/2006
05/30/2006 06/19/2006

556 Clerks List of Exhibits & Witnesses. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
557 Court's Instructions to the Jury. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
558 MINUTES of Proceedings: Jury Trial − Day 7 −. David D. Park, Don S. Willner and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca (503−326−8182). Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
559 MINUTES of Proceedings: Jury Trial − Day 8 −. David D. Park and Mary Ellen Page Farr present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Courtney C. Dippel and Louis A. Santiago present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca (503) 326−8182. Robert E. Jones presiding. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
560 Jury Verdict. (ntm, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
561 Transcript of Proceedings held on 11/3/04 (Oral Argument) before Judge Robert E. Jones. Court Reporter: Amanda M. LeGore (503−326−8184). (ntm, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
562 Judgment. Signed on 5/30/06 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (ntm, ) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
563 Satisfaction Full Satisfaction of Judgment by NCS Pearson, Inc.. Filed by NCS Pearson, Inc.. (Dippel, Courtney) (Entered: 06/19/2006)