an~ Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 1 of 18

~ /~".()toJ ~,... p tIf;( . iJl

'"
r}:J'

~ORIN

THE THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

01F::B21 PH 3:29

1[/--11. ~1ll~

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WALTER BURNES;

LARRY A. BLANTON;

*

ANDREW D. THOMAS; OTIS BAILEY;

*

CHARLES V. SMITH, SR.; SUSSIE W. SMITH;

*

CARL E. WASHINGTON; SHIRLEY C. ROBINSON;

*

DONNEL SMITH;

GEORGE GODFREY;

*

SYLVESTER TRIPLETT; MICHAEL BROWN;

*

DEBBIE J. WISE;

RONALD L. TAYLOR;

*

CORNELIUS JOHNSON; LEVI A. BILLUPS, ill.;

*

ALLEN F. HURT;

JOHN W. JACKSON, JR.;

*

DESMOND L. HEATH; ANNETTE K. MICKEL;

*

GLORIA CUNNINGHAM; SHIRLEY A. HIGH;

*

JAMES A. TAYLOR;

ALFRED W. RAMSEY;

*

HILTON TEMPLE;

ALDENN. JOHNSON;

*

DONALD E. PHILLIPS; JOHNNY E. HAWKINS;

*

MITCHELL A. GEORGE; ERWIN E. CURTIS, JR.;

*

ARTHUR LANE;

MESHELL BELSER;

*

MICHAEL J. McCORDY; MARY C. JOHNSON;

*

DWIGHT HORTON;

JOHNNY PAYNE;

*

~> Uni1,SC'I. !~,,,:::: :"1": !,

L'., ;" <,", I
,',/,~

PLAINTIFFS,

* * CIVIL ACTION * CV 99-AR-3280-S

vs.

*

*

PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC., and

*

PRECISION STANDARD, INC.

*

*

DEFENDANTS.

*

PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT The plaintiffs, by and through counsel, hereby file this second amended complaint

amending the original complaint filed on December 9, 1999.

I. NATURE OF THE CLAIM

1. This is an action, brought by the above named plaintiffs, thirty-six (36) in number,

collectively, hereinafter referred to as " plaintiffs", black employees, who bring this action

against the defendants, PEMCO Aeroplex, Inc., and Precision Standard Inc'., and its

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 2 of 18
successors, to vindicate violations of the plaintiffs' civil rights and to redress the unlawful and discriminatory employment practices creating hostile working environment and racial harassment at the defendants' facility, PEMCO Aeroplex, located in Birmingham, Alabama. The plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive relief and other equitable, and compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants based upon unlawful employment practices ofrace discrimination and racial harassment by Defendants' management, its personnel, white supervisors and white employees in violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1991, 42 U.S. C. Section 1981A and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and 42 U.S.c. 1988.
2. The original thirty-six plaintiffs respectfully request the leave of court to amend this complaint and add their claims of racial harassment creating a hostile working environment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, ~
~.,
3. All conditions precedent to the institution ofplaintiffs' Title VII claim have been fulfilled, the original thirty-six plaintiffs have satisfied all administrative requirements by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by filing charges of race- based discrimination against the defendants which led to the Commission's finding ofreasonable cause to believe that the original thirty-six plaintiffs and blacks as a class have been subjected to a racially hostile working environment. [See Previously Submitted "Plaintiffs' Exhibits, AI-36; BI-36; CI-36 and Dl36"]
2

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 3 of 18
4. Defendants' unlawful employment practices of race discrimination and racial harassment constitute a pattern and practice rather than isolated incidents ofracial harassment at Defendants' facility, PEMCO Aeroplex, Inc. located in Birmingham, Alabama. Defendants' pattern and practice of race discrimination have subjected the plaintiffs and other similarly situated black employees to ongoing racial harassment constituting a continuing violation of the rights of the plaintiffs and black employees in general.
II. JURISDICTION 5. The jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. Sections 451,1331, 1343, 1345; 28 U.S.C., Sections 2201 and 2202, which confer jurisdiction upon this Court in civil actions arising under the Constitution or the laws ofthe United States and to recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights and the common law of the State of Alabama. This action is further authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 703(a), 796(f) and (3) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. Section 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3) and Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. Section 1981A and 42 U.S.C. 1981.
'6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.c. Section 1391 (b) and Section 1391(c), because Defendants can be found and conduct business in Northern District ofAlabama, and because the cause of action arose and occurred in the Northern District of Alabama.
III. THE PARTIES 7. The plaintiffs are African-American adult black citizens of the United States of America who reside in various parts of North Alabama. They are current and past employees of the
3

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 4 of 18
Defendants. All of the named plaintiffs have worked for various lengths of time in Defendants' facility, PEMCO Aeroplex, located in Birmingham, Alabama.
8. The Defendant, PEMCO Aeroplex Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "PEMCO") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alabama and maintains a facility in Birmingham, Alabama. PEMCO Aeroplex, Inc., is a subsidiary of Precision Standard, Inc. Defendants employ over 1300 hundred workers in their Birmingham facility.
9. The Defendant, Precision Standard Inc.(hereinafter referred to as "Precision Standard") is a Colorado corporation and maintains its corporate office in Denver, Colorado. Precision Standard is the parent company of PEMCO Aeroplex, Inc.
IV. AMENDED COMPLAINT: FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFFS' CAUSES OF ACTION
The plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 9 by reference and further incorporate all ofthe allegations and the exhibits in the plaintiffs' original complaint and amended complaint as if fully set forth herein.
10. The plaintiffs are African-American employees at the PEMCO Aeroplex facility located in Birmingham, Alabama, who have worked at the facility for various lengths oftime. Some ofthe plaintiffs have been employed for over 20 years. At all relevant times, the plaintiffs were employees of the Defendants. All of the plaintiffs are members of a protected group under the civil rights laws of the United States of America.
4

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 5 of 18
11. Throughout the plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants, the plaintiffs and black employees in general have been discriminated against and continue to be discriminated against on the basis of their race by being subjected to a hostile working environment in the form of racial harassment. Said racial harassment includes, but is not limited to, demeaning and derogatory racial remarks by white supervisors and white employees, and to overtly racially-motivated verbal abuse of black employees by white supervisors and employees. There are also numerous graphic racial epitaphs and displays intended to intimidate and harass black employees. Other forms of racial harassment at the PEMCO facility includes disparate treatments ofblacks with regard to the terms and conditions ofemployment, to wit: job assignments, general work conditions and requirements, and the application of work rules and regulations.
12. At all relevant times, the plaintiffs were subjected to and continue to be subjected to less favorable terms of employment and conditions of employment because their race. White employees received preferential treatment and continue to receive preferential treatment over black employees. Black employees were disciplined and reprimanded and continue to be disciplined and reprimanded for violation of company rules and regulations for which white employees who violated similar rules and regulations were not disciplined or reprimanded. Black employees were and continue to be subjected to excessive criticisms and unfounded complaints by white supervisors in the performance of their jobs. Plaintiffs and black employees in general are given harsher disciplinary measures than similarly situated white employees.
13. On several occasions particular tasks have been assigned to two white employees, but a similar task was assigned to one black employee with a demand that the black employee
5

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 6 of 18
complete the task in the same time it took the two white employees to complete. This conduct is continuing.
14. White supervisors often refer to black employees as "lazy" persons who are not equipped to perform skilled work assignments.
15. On several occasions black employees were assigned jobs that were rejected by white employees. Black employees were and continue to be disproportionately assigned to non-skilled menial jobs such as cleaning, grinding and removing corrosion, and such tasks that amount to cleaning up behind white employees.
16. For instance, the "Wash Rack" Department is disproportionately staffed by large numbers of black employees. The Wash Rack Department is believed to have the worse and most dangerous working conditions. Employees in this department are exposed to toxic chemicals and harmful chemicals used in removing paint and corrosive from aircraft's.
17. Black employees have complained without success to their supervisors and management regarding Defendants' unlawful employment practices.
18. At all relevant times and throughout the plaintiffs' employment with the defendants, black employees have been and continue to be subjected to incessant racial harassment and racial intimidation by white supervisors and white employees.
6

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 7 of 18
19. African-American employees ofthe PEMCO facility are constantly exposed to other forms of racial harassment and intimidation, including the following:
(a) racially motivated graffiti, and racial slurs written on the bathroom walls and other parts of PECMCO premises, the word, "RIGGERS on government boxes with the "R" crossed over and replaced with "N" to read "NIGGERS";
(b) a NO-SMOKING SIGN-with the "SMO" crossed over to read, "NO KING HOLIDAY;
(c) racially demeaning writings such as "Mayor Arrington sucks Reverend Woods dick", [Mr. Richard Arrington, an African American was a former Mayor of the City of Birmingham, a black political leader and Reverend Abraham Wood, is an African American and a Civil Rights leader];
(d) other racial slurs written on the bathroom wall~ included, " A BLACK MAN WILL SUCKAWHITE MAN'S DICK FOR A BALE OF COTTON"; "KILLALLNIGGERSAND SEND THEM TO AFRICA";
(e) "KKK" insignia were inscribed on PEMCO boxes; (f) white supervisors and white employees alike at PEMCO regularly tell what they refer to as "NIGGER JOKES" and make remarks such as "SAPPHIRE, BOYS, CHICKEN CATCHERS" while referring to Black Employees; (g) for several years until about a year ago, some white employees were allowed to display of large Nazi flags inside PEMCO premises and allowing white employees to display confederate flags on PEMCO assigned rollers while a black employee wearing aT-shirt with Martin Luther King and Malcolm X photograph was asked to take it off or wear the T-shirt inside out;
(h) on or about 8/19/97 a hangman noose was prominently displayed, hanging in Bay 7

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 8 of 18
#8 work area; (i) on or about 10/16/97, another hangman noose was prominently displayed upstairs
in Bay #1 in the Bladder shop; (j) on or about January 18, 1998, NO-SMOKING SIGN-with the "SMO" crossed
over to read, "NO KING HOLIDAY; (k) on or a bout January 18, 1998, copies of racially derogatory and demeaning
document entitled NIGGER APPLICATION were placed in PEMCO rest rooms and in the work sites of Black Employees on the premises of PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC., in Birmingham, Alabama;
(1 ) on or about July 27, 1998, a white employee told a black employee reporting to his job site, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE, THERE IS NO COTTON TO BE PICKED";
(m) a white employee once painted another a rollaway belonging to a fellow black employee with black paint and when confronted by PEMCO management, the white employee admitted he painted a black employee's rollaway black as a joke;
(n) on or about April 6, 1999, a white employee found humor in the death of a black employee when the white employee was approached for a contribution toward buying flowers for the family ofthe deceased black employee. The white employee said, referring to the deceased black employee and other black employees" HE IS A GOOD NIGGER NOW, ALL DEAD NIGGERS ARE GOOD NIGGERS";
(0) in October 1999 prior to the election of two African American as representatives to the Local Union, these racial epitaphs were written on PEMCO walls: "UAW IS FOR WHITES NO NIGGER SO DON'T COME SATURDAY";
(P) after the meeting oflocal UAW meeting, two black candidates were elected as 8

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 9 of 18

union representatives, the following writing was discovered in the main bathroom, "THE PEMCO

NIGGERCLUBWEREWETAKECAREOFOURGOODNIGGERS", PEMCOemployees

belong to UAW Local Union 1155;

(q) on or about November 11, 1999 the following writing was found on the main

bathroom wall "BILLY CLUB IS FOR THE NIGGER PEMCO WATCH OUT FOR THE

GOOD NIGGER";

(r)

in Julyof1999, a characterization ofa black person with big lips was painted on the

bathroom walls with a statement "BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BIG LIPS";

(s) on January 11, 2000 a writing on the bathroom wall "NIGGER COCK SUCKER

ON NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE";

( t ) at the time of filing this complaint, some of these writings are still prominent on

a bathroom wall;

20. While some of these racial epitaphs have been painted over by the Defendants, several of

the racial epitaphs still remain prominent on the walls of defendants' premises at Birmingham,

Alabama as at the time of filing the original complaint and this amended complaint. The racial

harassment of the plaintiffs and black employees in general is continuing.

21. The plaintiffs have at various times complained to their white supervisors and managers concerning these unlawful employment practices but no effective action has been taken by the defendants to curtail the racial harassment of the plaintiffs. In one particular instance, the plant manager was confronted on the noose incident and other racial slurs, this manager's response was that such behavior or conducts are part of the culture here.

9

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 10 of 18
COUNT ONE 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981 CLAIM The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the allegations contained within paragraphs 1 through 21 above, and further allege as follows:
22. During the course of plaintiffs' employment with the defendants and at all relevant times, black employees were and continue to be subjected to differential terms and conditions of employment, and racial harassment and racial intimidation not experienced by similarly situated whites employees.
23. The defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against the plaintiffs and black employees in general in the terms and conditions of employment on account of their race. This pattern and practice ofdiscrimination has been adopted, condoned, and approved by the defendants as they have failed to take any reasonable measures to curtail and/or eradicate the unlawful employment practices described in this lawsuit.
24. Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of the unlawful employment practices in its Birmingham facility but have failed to take reasonable steps to curtail or eradicate the racial harassment and unlawful employment practices complained of in this lawsuit.
25. Defendants failed to properly and adequately train their managerial and supervisory employees to prohibit discriminatory employment practices, including discrimination based on race and racial harassment at the Birmingham facility.
10

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 11 of 18
COUNT ONE 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981 CLAIM The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the allegations contained within paragraphs 1 through 21 above, and further allege as follows:
22. During the course of plaintiffs' employment with the defendants and at all relevant times, black employees were and continue to be subjected to differential terms and conditions of employment, and racial harassment and racial intimidation not experienced by similarly situated whites employees.
23. The defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against the plaintiffs and black employees in general in the terms and conditions of employment on account of their race. This pattern and practice ofdiscrimination has been adopted, condoned, and approved by the defendants as they have failed to take any reasonable measures to curtail and/or eradicate the unlawful employment practices described in this lawsuit.
24. Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of the unlawful employment practices in its Birmingham facility but have failed to take reasonable steps to curtail or eradicate the racial harassment and unlawful employment practices complained of in this lawsuit.
25. Defendants failed to properly and adequately train their managerial and supervisory employees to prohibit discriminatory employment practices, including discrimination based on race and racial harassment at the Birmingham facility.
10

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 12 of 18
26. Despite defendants' actual and constructive knowledge of company- wide racial harassment in their Birmingham facility, defendants failed to institute race sensitivity training for their employees.
27. Defendants maintain a pattern and practice of fostering and encouraging unlawful employment practices, racial harassment and racial intimidation of the plaintiffs and other black employees.
28. Defendants have failed to take appropriate steps to ensure the effective and consistent implementation of non-discriminatory employment practices. Defendants have failed to place a premium on compliance with federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements. Defendants have failed to enforce their own non-discrimination policy. Further, Defendants have failed to adequately train their supervisors and employees on the necessity of maintaining a racially harmonious working environment. Thus, the current discriminatory practices are continuing and are likely to continue into the future.
29. Defendants' practices and procedures for handling complaints of racial harassment do not adequately ensure that similar incidents will not occur in the future. For instance, on several occasions, white employees were caught using racial slurs towards black co-workers. However, no disciplinary measures were taken against the culpable white employees. In the event that disciplinary measures were taken, such measures were grossly inadequate, ineffective, and failed to discourage future incidents of racial harassment.
11

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 13 of 18
30. With respect to racial epitaphs on Defendants' premises, defendants efforts to remove said epitaphs has been limited to merely painting over some of them.
31. Upon information and belief, as at the time of filing the original complaint and this amended complaint there remains distinctively visible racial epitaphs on several locations on defendants premises in the Birmingham facility. The remaining epitaphs are witnessed daily by defendants' officials, management personnel and supervisors. Further, white employees continue to pass out racially derogatory documents intended to harass, intimidate and humiliate black employees.
32. Defendants' discriminatory and unlawful employment practices identified in this complaint have been intentional, deliberate, willful, systematic, and conducted in callous disregard of the federally protected rights of black employees granted under 42 U.S.C. 1981. The unlawful employment practices complained of by the plaintiffs have been adopted, condoned, and approved by the defendants.
33. By reason of defendants' discriminatory employment practices, black employees at the PEMCO Aeroplex facility, individually, and as a class, have suffered and continue to suffer harassment, humiliation, indignation, degradation, fear, intimidation, helplessness, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress.
34. As a proximate result of Defendants' unlawful employment practices, racial discrimination and racial harassment described in this complaint, the defendants have prevented their black
12

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 14 of 18
employees on the basis ofrace from making employment contracts on the same basis and with the same freedom as is enjoyed by similarly situated white employees. Defendants, therefore, have violated and continue to violate 42 U.S.c. Section 1981, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1991, thus entitling the named plaintiffs to monetary and injunctive relief under both Sections 1981 and 1988.
35. As a proximate result of the unlawful employment practices of PEMCO, the unlawful employment practices of Precision Standard, the unlawful conduct of some of defendants' white supervisory staff, and the egregious racial harassment and racial intimidation occurring at the premises of the PEMCO Aeroplex facility as set forth in this complaint, the defendants have violated or caused to be violated, the rights of the plaintiffs and the rights of black employees in general under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of1991. The named plaintiffs and black employees as a whole have suffered and continue to suffer racial damages and harm including, but not limited to, extreme emotional distress, shame, intimidation, humiliation, indignation, embarrassment and fear. As a result, the plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages.
36. In addition, the plaintiffs and black employees in general are threatened with further injury in the form of racial harassment and intimidation for which they have no adequate remedy at law. As such, this action is seeking, in part, permanent injunctive relief as the only means for securing complete relief and bringing to an end the irreparable injury resulting from the defendants' violations of the civil rights laws.
13

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 15 of 18
COUNT TWO RACIAL HARASSMENT CREATING HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
The plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 36 by reference and further incorporate all ofthe allegations and the exhibits in the plaintiff's original complaint and attached exhibits as if fully set forth herein.
37. All conditions precedent to the institution ofplaintiffs, Title VII claim have been fulfilled. The original thirty six plaintiffs have satisfied all administrative requirements by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by filing charges of race based discrimination against the defendants. As a result, the Commission subsequently investigated plaintiffs' charges and thereafter found reasonable cause to believe that the original thirty-six plaintiffs and blacks as a class have been subj ected to a racially hostile working environment. [Plaintiffs' Exhibits, Al-36; Bl-36; Cl-36 and Dl-36]
38. On November 20, 2000, the original thirty-six plaintiffs' were issued their right to sue letters which were received by the individual plaintiffs and their attorneys on or about November 23,2000.
39. On a continuing basis, the defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Birmingham facility in violation of Section 42 U.S. C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1) and 3(a), by subjecting the plaintiffs to work in a hostile working environment in the form of the racial harassment described throughout the body of this complaint.
14

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 16 of 18

40. The effect of the practices and conduct complained of in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint has been to deprive the plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race.

41. The unlawful practices complained of above were intentional and were done with reckless indifference to the federally protected civil rights of the plaintiffs.

42. As a proximate result reason of Defendants' discriminatory employment practices, the plaintiffs on the basis of their race, individually and as a group, have suffered and continue to suffer harassment, humiliation, indignation, degradation, fear, intimidation, helplessness, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray:

1.

upon a jury trial, for the court to adjudge and declare that the practices of the defendants

complained herein and the conduct of defendants, their management personnel, managers,

white supervisors and white employees are in violation of the rights of the plaintiffs

under Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act

of 1991,42 U.S.C. 1981A and under 42 U.S. C 1981;

11. a permanent prohibitory injunction be issued prohibiting the Defendants, their officers,

supervisors, agents, employees or successors, from engaging in the employment practices

complained of herein;

111. a permanent mandatory injunction be issued requiring that the defendants adopt employment

15

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 17 of 18

practices in accord with the requirements of federal employment discrimination laws;

iv. judgment be entered in favor ofthe plaintiffs for compensatory damages for past, present

and future mental anguish, emotional distress, shame, intimidation, humiliation, indignation,

embarrassment and fear, and punitive damages, all in the amount of Seventy five million

dollars [$75,000,000.00] upon a jury trial;

v.

the plaintiffs be granted attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and the costs and expenses of this

action;

VI. the plaintiffs be awarded such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be found

appropriate and as the Court may deem just or equitable; and

Vll. that the Court retain jurisdiction until such time as it is satisfied that the Defendants have

remedied the practices complained ofand is determined to be found in full compliance with

the law.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND TRIAL BY A JURY

~lysUbmitted'
~
DARRYL BENDER
B a. No. 424-02-73 4

TYRONE QUARLES (QUAOlO)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 16

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 39 Filed 02/21/01 Page 18 of 18

OF COUNSEL :
BENDER, AGBOOLA AND BRADLEY, LLC 711 NORTH 18TH STREET BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203 322-2500 FAX: (205) 324-2120
OF COUNSEL :
SIMON AND ASSOCIATES 501 NORTH 20TH STREET 1150 FINANCIAL BUILDING BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203 (205) 324-2727 FAX (205) 324-2605

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the (~ day of~ 2001, I have served a copy of foregoing upon counsel for all parties, by placing a cop~ same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed to:

Hon. Naomi Hilton Archer Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Ridge Park Place 1130 220d Street South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205
Stephen E. Brown, Esq. Jeffrey A. Lee, Esq. Attorneys for the Defendants MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE 2400 AmSouthlHarbert Plaza 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203

OF COUNSEL

17

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAl\M JUN 21 PM 12: ~ 4
SOUTHERN DIVISION

WALTER BURNES;

LARRY A. BLANTON;

ANDREW D. THOMAS; OTIS BAILEY;

CHARLES V. SMITH, SR.; SUSIE W. SMITH;

CARL E. WASHINGTON; SHIRLEY C. ROBINSON;

DONNEL SMITH;

GEORGE GODFREY;

SYLVESTER TRIPLETT; MICHAEL BROWN;

DEBBIE J. WISE;

JOHN W. JACKSON, JR.;

CORNEUUS JOHNSON; AlLEN F. HURT;

DESMOND L. HEATH; ANNETTE K. MICKEL;

GLORIA CUNNINGHAM; SHIRLEY A. HIGH;

JAMES A. TAYLOR;

ALFRED W. RAMSEY;

HILTON TEMPLE;

ALDEN N. JOHNSON;

DONALD E. PHILLIPS; JOHNNY E. HAWKINS;

MITCHEll A. GEORGE; ERWIN E. CURTIS, JR.;

ARTHUR LANE;

MESHELL BELSER;

MICHAEL J. McCORDY; MARY C. JOHNSON;

DWIGHT HORTON;

JOHNNY PAYNE;

PLAINTIFFS,

vs.

PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC. PRECISION STANDARD, INC., and PEMCO AVIATION GROUP, INC.

DEFENDANTS.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
* * * CIVIL ACTIO=~
* CV 99·AR·328~·S *
* * * * * *

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT The plaintiffs, by and through counsel, hereby file this third amended complair:t

amending the original complaint and the second amended complaint.

Ie NATURE OF THE CLAIM

1. This is an action, brought by the above named plaintiffs, thirty-four (34) in number,

collectively, hereinafter referred to as " plaintiffs", black employees, who bring t"lis action

against the defendants, PEMCO Aeroplex, Inc., and Precision Standard Inc., PemcGAviation

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 2 of 18

Group, Inc. and their successors, to vindicate violations of the plaintiffs' civil rights an4 to redress

the unlawful and discriminatory employment practices creating hostile working envirooment and

racial harassment at the defendants' facility, PEMCO Aeroplex, located in Birmingham Alabama. I

The plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive relief and other equitable, and compenrI atory and

I
punitive damages against the Defendants based upon unlawful employment practic+s of race

•

I

discrimination and racial harassment by Defendants' management, white supervisors and white

employees in violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Art of 1991,
I I
42 U.S. C. § 1981A and 42 U.S.c. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
2. The plaintiffs respectfully request leave of court to amend this complaint and to add Pemco

Aviation Group, Inc., the parent company ofPemco Aeroplex, Inc. since approximate y 1999.
!
3. All conditions precedent to the institution ofplaintiffs' Title VII claims have been fulfilled.

The plaintiffs have satisfied all administrative requirements by the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission by filing charges of race- based discrimination against the defendants w9ich led to
i
the Commission's finding of reasonable cause to believe that the plaintiffs have beelljsubjected
I
to a racially hostile working environment. [See Previously Submitted "Plaintiffs' Ex,bits, AI-
I
36; BI-36; CI-36 and DI-36"] I , I
4. Defendants' unlawful employment practices of race discrimination and racial ~rassment
I
constitute a pattern and practice rather than isolated incidents of racial harassment at Dtfendants'
!
facility, PEMCO Aeroplex, Inc. located in Birmingham, Alabama. Defendants' Pfttern and

practice of race discrimination have subjected the plaintiffs and other similarly situ1ted black
I
employees to ongoing racial harassment constituting a continuing violation of the ri&hts of the
I
plaintiffs and black employees in general. !

2

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 3 of 18
II. JURISDICTION 5. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1343, 1345; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, which confer jurisdiction upon this Court in civil acti(tns arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States and to recover damages Of'to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civiLrights and the common law of the State of Alabama. This action is further authorized and institute! pursuant
to Sections 703(a), 796(f) and (3) of Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981A and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1391 (b) and § 1391(0.), because Defendants can be found and conduct business in the Northern District of Alabama, and because the cause of action arose and occurred in the Northern District of Alabama.
III. THE PARTIES 7. The plaintiffs are African-American, adult citizens of the United States of Arrerica who reside in various pafts of North Alabama. They are current and past employees of the Defendants. All of the named plaintiffs have worked for various lengths of time in DGifendants' facility, PEMCO Aeroplex, located in Birmingham, Alabama. 8. The Defendant, PEMCO Aeroplex, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "PEMCO") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alabama and maintains a ='acility in Birmingham, Alabama. PEMCO Aeroplex, Inc., was a subsidiary of Precision Standard· Inc. until late 1999 or early 2000, at which time it became a subsidiary of Pemco Aviation O'oup, Inc. Defendants employ over 1300 hundred workers in their Birmingham facility. 9. The Defendant, Precision Standard Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Precision Standard"). is
3

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 4 of 18
a Colorado corporation and maintains its corporate office in Denver, Colorado. Precisioll Standard is the former parent company of PEMCO Aeroplex, Inc. 10. The Defendant, Pemco Aviation Group, Inc. (hereinafter" Pemco Aviation Group") is a corporation whose state of incorporation is presently unknown to the Plaintiffs. It maintains its corporate office in Birmingham, Alabama on PEMCO's premises. In its 1999 Form lGI-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision ("lO-K report"), Precision Standard disclosed that on September 7,1999, Matthew Gold, its President, CEO and principal stJCkholder (51 % ownership), sold 1 million shares of his common stock in the company to VariO<,lS entities including Tennenbaum & Co., LLC. Gold and Tennenbaum & Co. also jointly formed rCOIPSI, LLC unto which Gold contributed his remaining 1,026,908 shares. Tennenbaum & Co.later formed Pemco Aviation Group, Inc., which became the parent company of Pemco Aerople;;;, Inc., as successor to Precision Standard. 11. Defendants Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., Precision Standard and Pemco Aviation Gro~p are "employers" for purposes of plaintiffs' Title VII claims. Each is an employer because th<:ll"e existed between Pemco and Precision Standard, and there exists between Pemco and Pemco- Aviation Group, during the relevant times an integrated relationship or relationship of control inv(,~Jving: (a) interrelated operations; (b) common management; (c) centralized control of labor relations; or (d) common ownership or financial control. The indicia of Precision Standard and PemcQ Aviation Group's interrelated operations, common management, control of labor relations ancL common ownership or financial control of Pemco includes the following:
(i) Precision Standard andPemco Aeroplex, Inc.' s boards of directors were interlocked; (ii) Pemco Aviation Groups and Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.'s boards of directors are interlocked;
4

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 5 of 18
(iii) Precision Standard reported Pemco Aeroplex's financial results on ajoi:lt, consolidated basis, rather than on the basis of its individual operating performance;
(iv) Pemco Aviation Group reports Pemco Aeroplex's finance results on aj)int, consolidated basis, rather than on the basis of its individual operating performance;
(v) Pemco Aviation Group's corporate headquarters are located on Pemco Aeroplex's premises at 1943 North 50th Street, Birmingham, AL 35212;
(vi) Pemco Aviation Group's latest lO-K report includes Pemco Aeroplex's employees within its total employee count of 2,037;
(vii) Pemco Aviation Group and Precision Standard include Pemco Aerople}.'s employees within the parent company's defined benefits pension plan;
(viii) Pemco Aviation Group and Precision Standard identify Pemco Aeroplex' spremises as a significant property of the parent company;
(ix) Pemco Aviation Group and Precision Standard's credit facilities and lo~,ns are collateralized by properties including the assets of Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. These loans contain covenants which restrict Pemco Aeroplex' s disposition of its own assets and dictate certah financial ratios which the parent company and Pemco Aeroplex must meet.
(x) The financial and accounting policies of Pemco Aeroplex are and were established by the parent companies, Precision Standard and Pemco Aviation Group;
(xi) According to Precision Standard and Pemco Aviation Group's lO-K reports, the "Company" provides health care benefits to its salary, hourly and retired employee~;
(xii) Also according to the lO-K report, the "Company" maintains single self·msured workers compensation program for its various subsidiaries, consisting of a certain retG:ntion and insurance for claims in excess of $250,000;
5

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 6 of 18

(xiii) Precision Standard and Pemco Aviation Group di vide the "Company" nperations

into three interrelated operating groups: Government Services, Commercial Selvices, and

Manufacturing and Overhaul. The Government Services Group consists of Pemco \eropJex' s

operations at the Birmingham airport. Pemco Aviation Group, therefore, is not treated as an

independent operating entity but rather as part of an inseparable enterprise.

(xiv) Pemco Aeroplex's labor relations are and have been directed by its parmt

companies, Precision Standard and Pemco Aviation Groups;

(xv) The lO-K report discloses that insiders such as the Company's executive officers,

directors, and their affiliates own approximately 38% of the common stock. As a n:suIt, these

insiders can significantly influence any matter requiring shareholder approval such as t le election

of directors, mergers, and other corporate transactions involving not only the parent company but

also Pemco Aeroplex.

(xvi) All ofPemco Aeroplex's stationary, literature, logos, and even employeepaychecks

identify Pemco Aeroplex as "A Precision StandardCompany" or " A Pemco Aviation Group

Company."

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFFS' CAUSES OF ACTION

The plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 11 by reference ~ nd further

incorporate all of the allegations and the exhibits in the plaintiffs' original complaint aniii amended

complaint as if fully set forth herein.

12. The plaintiffs are African-American employees at the PEMCO Aeroplex facihy located

the 1me in Binningham, Alabama, who have worked at facility for various lengths of time.

of the

plaintiffs have been employed at Pemco Aeroplex for over 20 years. At all relevant limes, the

plaintiffs were employees of the Defendants. All of the plaintiffs are members of a protected

6

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 7 of 18
group under the civil rights laws of the United States of America. 13. Throughout the plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants, the plaintiffs and black employees in general have been discriminated against and continue to be discriminated~against on the basis of their race by being subjected to a hostile working environment in the forrn of racial harassment. Said racial harassment includes, but is not limited to, demeaning and derogatory racial remarks by white supervisors and white employees, and to overtly racially-motivated verbal abuse of black employees by white supervisors and employees. There are also numerous graphic racial epithets and displays intended to intimidate and harass black employees. Other forms of racial harassment at the PEMCO facility includes disparate treatments of blacks with regard t~ the terms and conditions of employment, to wit: job assignments, general work conditions and req~irements, and the application of work rules and regulations. 14. At all relevant times, the plaintiffs were subjected to and continue to be subjected to less favorable terms of employment and conditions of employment because of their rac:~. White employees recei ved preferential treatment and continue to recei ve preferential treatment twer black employees. Black employees were disciplined and reprimanded and continue to be disciplined and reprimanded for violation of company rules and regulations for which white employees who violated similar rules and regulations were not disciplined or reprimanded. Black employees were and continue to be subjected to excessive criticisms and unfounded complaints by white Slr pervisors in the performance of their jobs. Plaintiffs and black employees in general are given harsher disciplinary measures than similarly situated white employees. 15. On several occasions particular tasks have been assigned to two white employ.~es, but a similar task was assigned to one black employee with a demand that the black employee complete the task in the same time it took the two white employees to complete. This (onduct is
7

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 8 of 18
continuing. 16. White supervisors often refer to black employees as "lazy" persons who are n01] equipped to perform skilled work assignments. 17. On several occasions black employees were assigned jobs that were rejecteq by white employees. Black employees were and continue to be disproportionately assigned to n(~'n-skilled, menial jobs such as cleaning, grinding and removing corrosion, and such tasks that .Itmount to cleaning up behind white employees. 18. Forinstance, the "Wash Rack" Department is disproportionately staffed by larg~: numbers of black employees. The Wash Rack Department is believed to have the worse iand most dangerous working conditions. Employees in this department are exposed to toxic anli harmful chemicals used in removing paint and corrosion from aircrafts. 19. Black employees have complained without success to their supervisors and ma!lagement regarding Defendants' unlawful employment practices. 20. At all relevant times and throughout the plaintiffs' employment with the Defend~nts, black employees have been arid continue to be subjected to incessant racial harassment ~md raCIal intimidation by white supervisors and white employees. 21. African-American employees of the PEMCO facility are constantly exposed to otller forms of racial harassment and intimidation, including the following:
(a) racially motivated graffiti, and racial slurs written on the bathroom walls1land other parts of PEMCO's premises;
I
(b) the word, "RIGGERS on government boxes, had the "R" crossed over am~ replaced with "N" to read "NIGGERS";
(c) a NO·SMOKING SIGN- had the "SMO" crossed over to read, "NO KING 8

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 9 of 18
HOLIDAY;" (d) racially demeaning writings such as "Mayor Arrington sucks Reverend W·)ods dick"
[Mr. Richard Arrington, an African American was a former Mayor of the City of Bim1ingham, a black political leader and Reverend Abraham Wood, is an African American and a civil rights leader];
(e) racial slurs written on the bathroom walls including, " A BLACK MAN WILL SUCK A WHITE MAN'S DICK FOR A BALE OF COTTON"; "KILL ALL NIGGtRS AND SEND THEM TO AFRICA";
(f) "KKK" insignia were inscribed on PEMCO boxes; (g) white supervisors and white employees alike at PEMCO regularly tell; what they refer to as "NIGGER JOKES" and make remarks such as "SAPPHIRE, BOYS, CmCKEN CATCHERS" while referring to black employees; (h) for several years, some white employees were allowed to display large l'lazi flags inside PEMCO's premises and to display confederate flags on assigned rollers, whife a black employee wearing a T-shirt displaying tributes to Martin Luther King and Malcolm XNas asked to take it off or wear the T-shirt inside out;
(i) on or about 8/19/97 a hangman's noose was prominently displayed, haTjging in Service Bay #8;
(j) on or about 10/16/97, another hangman noose was prominently displayt>d upstairs in Service Bay #1 in the Bladder Shop;
(k) on or about January 18, 1998, copies of a racially derogatory and demOl;aning document entitled NIGGER APPLICATION were placed in PEMCO restroomsand i~, the work sites of black employees;
9

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 10 of 18

(I) on or about July 27, 1998, a white employee told a black employee repOIbng to his

job site, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE, THERE IS NO COTTON TO BE PJ:CKED";

(m) a white employee once painted another a rollaway belonging to a fellolw

black employee with black paint, and when confronted by PEMCO management, ithe white

employee admitted he painted a black employee's rollaway black as a "joke";

(n) on or about April 6, 1999, a white employee found humor in the death (ilf a black

employee when the white employee was approached for a contribution toward buying flowers

for the family of the deceased black employee. The white employee said, referring to the deceased

black employee and other black employees, " HE IS A GOOD NIGGER NOW, AtiL DEAD

NIGGERS ARE GOOD NIGGERS";

(0) in October 1999 prior to the election of two African American as repre,;;entatives

to the local union, these racial epithets were written on PEMCO walls: "UAW IS FOR WHITES

NO NIGGER SO DON'T COME SATURDAY";

(p) after a local UAW meeting at which two black candidates were elected c"s

union representatives, the following writing was discovered in the main bathrooIT,: "THE

PEMCO NIGGER CLUB WHERE WE TAKE CARE OF OUR GOOD NIGGERS";

(q) on or about November 11, 1999, the following writing was found onl the main

bathroom wall: "BILLY CLUB IS FOR THE NIGGER PEMCO WATCH OUT F!OR THE

GOOD NIGGER";

(r)

in July of 1999, a characterization of a black person with large lips was painted on

the bathroom walls with the statement, "BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BIG LIPS";

(s)

on January 11, 2000, racial graffiti appeared on a bathroom wall stating,i"NIGGER

COCK SUCKER ON NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE"; 10

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 11 of 18
(t) on or about January 21,2001, a white Pemco employee disseminated a document entitled "Alabama Slave Code";
(u) on or about March 21, 2001, the epithet "Nigger" and a drawing depict~ng a black man hanging on a tree was found in Service Bay 1;
(v) on or about March 21, 2001, other graffiti was found at PEMCO denignating Rev. Jesse Jackson, Miss Black America, and the United Negro College Fund;
(w) on or about March 6, 2001, a swastika was drawn on a black employee's ~i"ork stand, along with the statement, "Hitler is god"; and
(x) during March, April and May 2001, racial graffiti has appeared in bathrooms and other locations at Pemco. 22. While some of these racial epithets have been painted over by the Defendants, se~ieral of the racial epithets still remain prominent on the walls of Defendants' premises. The racial harassment of the plaintiffs and black employees in general is continuing. 23. The plaintiffs have at various times complained to their white supervisors andk managers concerning these unlawful employment practices but no effective action has been talen by the Defendants to curtail the racial harassment of the plaintiffs. In one particular instance the plant manager was confronted about the noose incident and other racial slurs. This manager'; response was that such behavior or conduct are part of the culture at Pemco.
COUNT ONE Racial Harassment Creating a Hostile Working Environment
in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the allegations contai.led within paragraphs 1 through 23 above, and further allege as follows: 24. During the course of plaintiffs' employment with the defendants and at all rele\.jant times,
11

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 12 of 18
black employees were and continue to be subjected to differential terms and con~jitions of employment, and racial harassment and racial intimidation not experienced by similar)'y situated whites employees. 25. The Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination ~gainst the plaintiffs and black employees in general in the terms and conditions of employment on ~lccount of their race. This pattern and practice of discrimination has been adopted, condoned, and approved by the Defendants as they have failed to take any reasonable measures to curtail and/or er~!:dicate the unlawful employment practices described in this lawsuit. 26. Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of the unlawful employmen practices in its Birmingham facility but have failed to take reasonable steps to curtail or eradicate the racial harassment and unlawful employment practices complained of in this lawsuit. 27. Defendants failed to properly and adequately train their managerial and supervisory employees to prohibit discriminatory employment practices, including discrimination baSi~d on race and racial harassment at the Birmingham facility. 28. Despite Defendants' actual and constructive knowledge of company- wide racial h~lfassment in their Birmingham facility, Defendants failed to institute race sensitivity training! for their employees. 29. Defendants maintain a pattern and practice of fostering and encouraging' unlawful employment practices, racial harassment and racial intimidation of the plaintiffs and 01iher black employees. 30. Defendants have failed to take appropriate steps to ensure the effective and ¢:onsistent implementation of non-discriminatory employment practices. Defendants have failed :,0 place a premium on compliance with federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requi(ements.
12

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 13 of 18
Defendants have failed to enforce their own non-discrimination policy. Further, Defendants have failed to adequately train their supervisors and employees on the necessity of maintainim~ a racially harmonious working environment. Thus, the current discriminatory practices are continuing and are likely to continue into the future. 31. Defendants' practices and procedures for handling complaints of racial harassrrlent do not adequately ensure that similar incidents will not occur in the future. For instance,)n several occasions, white employees were caught using racial slurs towards black co-workers.. However, no disciplinary measures were taken against the culpable white employees. In the event that disciplinary measures were taken, such measures were grossly inadequate, ineffective,..and failed to discourage future incidents of racial harassment. 32. With respect to racial epithets on Defendants' premises, Defendants' efforts to discourage racial harassment has been limited to merely painting over some of the epithets. 33. Upon information and belief, as at the time of filing the original complaint and this amended complaint there remains distinctively visible racial epithets on several locations on defendants premises in the Birmingham facility. The remaining epithets are witnessdd daily by Defendants' officials, management personnel and supervisors. Further, white employeers continue to pass out racially derogatory documents intended to harass, intimidate and humi~iate black employees. 34. Defendants' discriminatory and unlawful employment practices identified in thisi;::omplaint have been intentional, deliberate, willful, systematic, and conducted in callous disregard of the federally protected rights of black employees granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Th~ unlawful employment practices complained of by the plaintiffs have been adopted, condoned, and approved by the Defendants.
13

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 14 of 18
35. By reason of Defendants' discriminatory employment practices, black emplo)ees at the PEMCO Aeroplex facility, have suffered and continue to suffer harassment, hHmiliation, indignation, degradation, fear, intimidation, helplessness, embarrassment, mental al]'guish and emotional distress. 36. As a proximate result of Defendants' unlawful employment practices, racial disarimination and racial harassment described in this complaint, the Defendants have prevented 1heir black employees on the basis of race from making employment contracts on the same basis a.,d with the same freedom as is enjoyed by similarly situated white employees. Defendants, ther<1fore, have violated and continue to violate 42 U.S.c. § 1981, et seq., as amended by the qvil Rights Restoration Act of 1991, thus entitling the named plaintiffs to monetary and injunctive n~lief under both §§ 1981 and 1988. 37. As a proximate result of the unlawful employment practices of PEMCO, th~t unlawful employment practices of Precision Standard, the unlawful employment practice ofPemci) Aviation Group, the unlawful conduct of some of Defendants' white supervisory staff, and theiegregious racial harassment and racial intimidation occurring at the premises of the PEMCd Aeroplex facility as set forth in this complaint, the Defendants have violated or caused to be viti)lated, the rights of the plaintiffs and the rights of black employees in general under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1991. The named plaintiffs fand black employees as a whole have suffered and continue to suffer racial damages and harm inc\uding, but not limited to, extreme emotional distress, shame, intimidation, humiliation, i~dignation, embarrassment and fear. As a result, the plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory anfj punitIve damages. 38. In addition, the plaintiffs and black employees in general are threatened with fUri.her injury
14

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 15 of 18
in the form of racial harassment and intimidation for which they have no adequate rem~:dy at law. As such, this action is seeking, in part, permanent injunctive relief as the only means f:)r securing complete relief and bringing to an end the irreparable injury resulting from the Defendants' violations of the civil rights laws.
COUNT TWO Racial Harassment Creating a Hostile Working Environment in
Violation of Title VII of the Civil Riehts Act of 1964 The plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 36 by reference aPd further incorporate all of the allegations and the exhibits in the plaintiff's original complaint alnd attached exhibits as if fully set forth herein.
39. All conditions precedent to the institution of plaintiffs' Title vn claim have b~len
fulfilled. The plaintiffs have satisfied all administrative requirements by the Equal Embloyment Opportunity Commission by filing charges of race based discrimination against the dej"tmdants. As a result, the Commission subsequently investigated plaintiffs' charges and thereaf1er found reasonable cause to believe that the plaintiffs have been subjected to a racially hostile ;iworking environment. [Plaintiffs' Exhibits, AI-36; BI-36; CI-36 and DI-36] 40. On November 20, 2000, the plaintiffs were issued their right to sue letters ~hich were received by the individual plaintiffs and their attorneys on or about November 23, 2ooU. 41. On a continuing basis, the Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment IJractices at its Birmingham facility in violation of § 42 U.S. C. § 2oo0e-2(a)(1) and 3(a), by subjecting the plaintiffs to a hostile working environment in the form of the racial harassment described throughout the body of this complaint. 42. The effect of the practices and conduct complained of in the preceding paragraphs of this
15

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 16 of 18

complaint has been to deprive the plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and :)therwise

adversely affect their status as employees because of their race.

43. The unlawful practices complained of above were intentional and were done witl reckless

indifference to the federally protected civil rights of the plaintiffs.

44. As a proximate result of Defendants' discriminatory employment practices, th~ plaintiffs

on the basis of their race, individually and as a group, have suffered and continue to s~"ffer

harassment, humiliation, indignation, degradation, fear, intimidation, helplessness,

embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray:

i.

upon a jury trial, for the court to adjudge and declare that the practices of the DGifendants

complained herein and the conduct of Defendants, their management personnel,

managers, white supervisors and white employees are in violation of the rights of the

plaintiffs under Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civill~ights

Restoration Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A and under 42 U.S. C. § 1981;

ii. a permanent prohibitory injunction be issued prohibiting the Defendants, their oilfficers,

supervisors, agents, employees or successors, from engaging in the employmentlpractices

complained of herein;

iii. a permanent mandatory injunction be issued requiring that the defendants adopt

employment practices in accord with the requirements of federal employment

discrimination laws;

iv. judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs for compensatory damages for p~st,

present and future mental anguish, emotional distress, shame, intimidation, humiliation,

16

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 17 of 18

indignation, embarrassment and fear, and punitive damages, all in the amount ~If

Seventy Five million dollars [$75,000,000.00] upon a jury trial;

v.

the plaintiffs be granted attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and the costs and expenl;;es of this

action;

vi. the plaintiffs be awarded such other and further legal and equitable relief as ml,ay be

found appropriate and as the Court may deem just or equitable; and

vii. that the Court retain jurisdiction until such time as it is satisfied that the Defen~ants have

remedied the practices complained of and is determined to be found in full cOIl!ipliance

with the law.

JURY DEMAND

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY.

Respectfully submitted,

KENNETH O. SIMON (SIMOOI)

OF COUNSEL :
BENDER & AGBOOLA, LLC 711 NORTH 18TH STREET BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203 322-2500 FAX: (205) 324-2120
17

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 68 Filed 07/10/01 Page 18 of 18

OFCOUNSEL:
SIMON AND ASSOCIATES 501 NORTH 20TH STREET 1150 FINANCIAL CENTER BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203 (205) 324-2727 FAX (205) 324-2605

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the __ day of

2001, I have served:la copy of

foregoing Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint upon counsel for all parties, by placin~ a copy of

the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed to:

Hon. Naomi Hilton Archer Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Ridge Park Place 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205
Stephen E. Brown, Esq. Jeffrey A. Lee, Esq. Attorneys for the Defendants MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE 2400 AmSouthlHarbert Plaza 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203
OF COUNSEL

18

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 1 of 11

# k t I!J CO~T IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

.. It

.~:. ~#.b.!I'iJ

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAM.NL . I -9 P/i 5: , 4

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WALTER BURNES, et aI., Plaintiffs,
vs.
PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC., et at., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

CV-99-AR-3280-S

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COME NOW certain of the Plaintiffs in the above-styled cause, by and through their attorneys, and move this Court for injunctive relief and in support thereof state:
1. This case arises out of charges of racial discrimination filed with the EEOC on February 2, 1998 and February 6, 1998, by thirty-six (36) Plaintiffs, against Defendants Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. and Precision Standard Inc. In their charges against Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. and Precision Standard, Inc., the Plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered racial harassment pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment at Defendants' Pemco Aeroplex facility and alleged discriminatory job assignments and discrimination in hiring, rehiring, job assignments, job placement, promotions and training.
2. On September 30, 1999, the EEOC issued determinations with findings of reasonable cause to believe that each of the Plaintiffs, and Blacks as a class, have been

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 2 of 11
subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII but finding no reasonable cause to believe Plaintiffs had been discriminated against with regard to job assignments, job placement, promotions, hiring, rehiring, and training.
3. On December 9, 1999, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1981 alleging racial discrimination and racial harassment creating a hostile work environment. Defendants filed their answer on January 16, 2000.
4. On November 20,2000, the original thirty-six (36) Plaintiffs were issued their right to sue letters by the EEOC. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint on June 27, 2001 adding their Title VII claims of racial discrimination and racial harassment creating a hostile work environment.
S. On April 12, 2002, Defendants, by and through their attorneys, made individual offers ofjudgment to each of the remaining thirty-two Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. In their offers ofjudgment, in addition to a monetary sum payable to the individual Plaintiffs, reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees accrued as of the date of the offer, Defendants offered to have "[a]ny appropriate equitable relief to be determined by the Court in accordance with all applicable laws" as judgments to be taken against Defendants in favor of the individual Plaintiffs.
6. In light of the aforementioned offers, Plaintiffs Walter Burnes, Otis Bailey, Shirley Robinson, Gloria Cunningham, Alfred Ramsey, Alden Johnson, Johnny Payne, James Taylor, and Hilton Temple, individually accepted Defendants' offers including the
2

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 3 of 11
offer for this Court to grant appropriate equitable relief. 7. Despite the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants have continued to subject the
Plaintiffs to a racially hostile work environment. Wherefore Plaintiffs pray for the following injunctive relief: 1. This Court order that Defendants Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. and Precision
Standard, their management, lead persons, supervisors, employees, and those in active concert and participation with them are hereby permanently enjoined from maintaining a racially hostile work environment or retaliating against or otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiffs and/or current or former black employees ofPemco Aeroplex, Inc.;
2. This Court order that the Defendants adopt the attached programmatic relief identified as Exhibit A; or
3. This Court appoint a Special Master to assess the environment at Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. and develop recommendations for comprehensive injunctive relief consistent with Title VII;
4. That the Special Master's fees be paid by the Defendants; 5. Such other relief as may be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
( -.---------,
Tyrone Quarles Attorney for Plaintiffs
3

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 4 of 11

OF COUNSEL SIMON & ASSOCIATES 505 North Twentieth Street 1150 Financial Center (205) 324-2727 Telephone (205) 324-2605 Facsimile
BENDER & AGBOOLA 711 18TH Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 322-2500 Telephone (205) 324-2120 Facsimile
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the ~.../~, day of May 2002, I have served a copy of
the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief upon counsel for all parties, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed to:
Hon. Naomi Hilton Archer Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Ridge Park Place 1130 22 nd Street South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205
Lee Cooper, Esq. Stephen E. Brown, Esq. Jeffery A. Lee, Esq. Attorneys for the Defendants MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE 2400 AmSouthlHarbert Plaza 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203

OF COUNSEL

===---

4

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 5 of 11
PROGRAMMATIC/REMEDIAL RELIEF
1. Objective and Summary of Proerammatic Relief
The purpose of the programmatic relief is to ensure that plaintiffs and minorities as a class at the Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. ("Pemco") facility in Birmingham, Alabama are no longer subjected to a a racially hostile work environment. The programmatic relief stipulated herein (the "Program") seeks to provide relief to blacks as a class, while ensuring that all interested parties, including Pemco, receive fair representation and input. The programmatic relief calls for Pemco to modify current ineffective harassment and employment policies as well as implement new policies specifically addressing racial harassment and discrimination. The relief seeks to accomplish this objective through a system of independent consultants and a "check and balance" system between Pemco's Human Resources Department and a Task Force established as part of the programmatic relief herein. Consistent with the overall objective of the programmatic relief, the Task Force, comprising members representing the EEOC's class, the individual plaintiffs, and Pemco, seeks to ensure fair representation for each of these entities as well as to ensure fair, equitable and effective implementation of this program and to provide oversight of Pemco's diversity efforts and compliance with the objectives stated herein.
2. Task Force
A. Powers and Duties
The Program establishes a Task Force to ensure fair, equitable and effective implementation of effective Title VII policies and to provide independent oversight of the Company's efforts to eliminate racial hostility in the workplace at Pemco. The Task Force has meaningful and substantial powers to review, oversee and monitor all existing Pemco employment and human resources policies, practices, and procedures, as well as the effectiveness ofthe program. The Task Force has independent investigatory authority. The Task Force will evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of all of the programmatic relief implemented by Pemco.
B. Composition and Tenure
The Task Force will have three members: one appointed by the individual plaintiffs; one appointed by Pemco; and one appointed by the EEOC. The chairperson of the Task Force will be chosen from the two individuals appointed by counsel for the plaintiffs and the class. The chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the Task Force. Any replacements will be appointed by the initial appointing authority ofthe member being replaced. The Task Force shall exist at least seven (7) years.
EXHIBIT
I A

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 6 of 11

C. Accountability

1. The Task Force will issue annual written reports to Pemco's CEO and Board of Directors, the EEOC, and Counsel for individual plaintiffs. The annual reports will include:

i.

a review and evaluation ofPemco's employment and human

resources practices;

ii. an evaluation of Pemco's compliance with Executive Order 11246, EEOC, and other Federal employment regulations and laws;

iii. any reported incidents of racial harassment or disparate treatment, including the name and title of the person who caused the incident, if known;

iv. an evaluation ofPemco's response to reported incidents of racial harassment or disparate treatment, including the disciplinary action taken by Pemco to punish and deter such conduct in the future;

v. a description of any reforms implemented due to this Program;

vi. an assessment ofPemco's compliance with the Program; and

vii. if necessary, a recommendation for modification of existing policies or addition of new policies to achieve the objectives of the Program.

D. Available Resources

The Task Force shall have an office at the Pemco Aeroplex Facility in Birmingham, Alabama. The Task Force may use the resources ofPemco's Human Resources Division whenever appropriate. Ifnecessary, the Task Force may appoint independent consultants to help the Task Force fulfill its mission. Pemco will pay for all reasonable expenses of the Task Force, including expenses associated with independent consultants, required in the Task Force fulfilling its mission.

E. Interaction With Operational Functions

Subject to its obligations under the Program, Pemco will retain full operational authority of its human resources, EEO, and legal functions. To the extent feasible, the Task Force

2

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 7 of 11

shall work in conjunction with the Director of Human Resources, except where such cooperation interferes with the Task Force's duty to objectively monitor, independently investigate or independently report under the Settlement Agreement.

F. Employment and Compensation

Task Force members shall receive reasonable compensation which shall be paid byPemco.

3. Joint Expert Review

Counsel for the Plaintiffs, the EEOC, and Pemco must each select an independent and highly qualified expert on EEO, Title VII, and employment harassment policies to undertake a full review of the company's policies, disciplinary authorities, disciplinary actions. Counsel for each of the aforementioned may select the same expert. However, in the event that different experts are selected, each expert shall prepare a report and recommendation to the Task Force on how Pemco can modify existing policies, develop and implement new policies to ensure that Pemco's harassment policies are consistent with the objectives of the Program.

4. GraffitilLiterature/Symbols/Nooses/Racially Offensive Objectives

A. Removing

Any offensive graffiti or writings with regard to race, color, gender, religion, age, or national origin will be removed immediately. However, prior to removing such graffiti or writings, Pemco shall photograph such writing via digital camera.

B. Monitoring

Pemco shall retain additional security personnel which shall patrol the restrooms in the bay areas on an hourly basis. Pemco shall also install cameras in an appropriate location in bay area restrooms. Said additional security and security cameras shall remain at Pemco in the designated areas for a period of at least seven (7) years.

C. Reporting

1.

Employees may submit reports of any offensive objects and writings,

including, but not limited to, nooses, KKK symbols, swastikas, racial

graffiti, and literature to ill!Y Pemco supervisor or manager. The

supervisor or manager must immediately take steps to ensure that the

report is transmitted to the Director of Human Resources. It is not

3

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 8 of 11
necessary that employees report offensive incidents to their immediate supervisor. However, Pemco's Human Resources Department shall give notice of the complaint to the reporting employee's supervisor immediately.
ii. In addition, any employee may also report any such incidents to the Task Force directly.
iii. Pemco management shall report any of the aforementioned incidents to the Task Force immediately.
iv. The Task Force shall report any of the aforementioned incidents to Pemco's Human Resources Department immediately.
v. In addition, Pemco shall establish a toll free phone number or "Hotline" that is operational around the clock for the purpose of allowing employees to report complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation through this number. The Hotline shall be routed directly to the Task Force's office. The Task Force shall immediately notify Pemco's Human Resources Department of all complaints. A written report of all complaints shall be submitted to Pemco's Human Resources Department within twenty-four (24) hours of any complaints received through the Hotline.
5. Investieative Procedures
A. Manner of Investigation
Counsel for Pemco, the EEOC, and the individual plaintiffs shall immediately hire an independent consultant to draft written guidelines detailing the manner in which Pemco's Human Resources Department shall investigate all complaints of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. Pemco shall compensate said independent consultant. The guidelines must be submitted to and approved by the Task Force.
Pemco's Human Resources Department shall perform an investigation ofthe complaint of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation by interviewing all interested parties including, but not limited to, the alleged victim, the individual(s) performing the offensive conduct, all witnesses, and all others who may have relevant information. Pemco's Human Resources may delegate investigative duties to the Security Department, Labor Relations or other departments. All final reports must be submitted by Pemco's Department of Human Resources.
4

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 9 of 11
B. Matters to Investigate
(i) Pemco's Human Resources Department shall perform an independent investigation of any discovered graffiti or offensive objects by interviewing any suspects or witnesses, reviewing any available surveillance tape, and contacting state and federal authorities, if necessary; and
(ii) Any alleged act or practice of racial discrimination.
c. Task Force's Independent Investigative Authority
The Task Force shall review all reports of investigation performed by the Human Resources Department. However, the Task Force has independent authority to investigate any complaints of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. The Task Force has the authority to conduct its investigation by the same means as previously granted to Pemco.
6. Punishment and Deterrence.
A. Pemco shall revise its harassment policy to include a section prohibiting racial harassment, discrimination, disparate treatment, and retaliation specifically.
B. Pemco shall implement a "Zero Tolerance" policy. Any Pemco employee found to have committed an act of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, after an investigation by the Human Resources Department and the Task Force, shall be terminated.
7. Sensitivity and Diversity Training
A. Pemco shall hire independent consultants recommended by the Task Force to provide annual diversity and sensitivity training to all employees and managers.
B. Pemco shall hire independent consultants recommended by the Task Force to provide diversity and sensitivity training to all new employees.
c. Pemco shall require all employees and management to attend said diversity and
sensitivity training.
D. Pemco shall compensate the independent consultants hired by the Task Force to implement the aforementioned diversity and sensitivity training.
5

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 10 of 11
8. Management and Supervisor Evaluation
All management and supervisory personnel shall be evaluated on an annual basis for their compliance with EEO laws and regulations, and participation in diversity and sensitivity training.
9. Counseling
Pemco shall pay for counseling of all plaintiffs who have been psychologically impaired as a result of the alleged racially hostile environment. Such counseling shall be performed by plaintiffs' expert who has already conducted an evaluation of the plaintiffs in this case. Alternatively, said expert may recommend another expert to treat the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs may also chose their own counselors. In any event, the extent of such treatment shall not exceed five (5) years.
10. Summary of Pemco's Obligations
The Program requires and empowers the Task Force to ensure that Pemco does each of the following:
A. Review and revise, to the extent necessary, its racial harassment and human resources policies;
B. review and revise, to the extent necessary, its evaluation practices;
C. ensure that effective racial harassment policies are developed and implemented;
D. ensure that Pemco's managers and employees receive annual training on EEO and company racial harassment policies;
E. ensure the company complies with Executive Order Number 11246 with respect to discrimination;
F. hire independent consultants to perform annual diversity and sensitivity training for all employees and management;
G. ensure that the company provides significant and appropriate diversity and and sensitivity training to all new employees;
H. submit annual reports to the Task Force on reported incidents of racial harassment and Pemco's response to such incidents, including any and all disciplinary actions taken;
6

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 202 Filed 05/09/02 Page 11 of 11

I.

submit annual reports to the Task Force on diversity and sensitivity training;

J. monitor the Human Resources Department's compliance with the Program;

K. compensate and provide the Task Force with the resources stipulated in section 2 of this Program;

M. hire an independent consultant to draft written investigative guidelines;

N. establish a toll free or "Hotline" number for employees to report harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or disparate treatment; and

P. enhance security in the bay area bathrooms.

7

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 214 Filed 05/30/02 Page 1 of 6
J •

ANDREW D.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABA'M~V,'( 30

SOUTHERN DIVISION

~ J ~. , "

THOMAS, et al.,

{,.;.j IlJ: 46

Plaintiffs,

v.

CV 99-AR-3280-S

PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC., et al., Defendants.

ENTERED ~
MAY30~

Before the court are motions that are, as yet, upruled upon. Several motions in limine were heard by this court on May 10, 2002. During this hearing, the following motions were orally ruled upon by the court, and those oral rulings are dispositive of said motions: paragraphs 2, 9 (insofar as the ruling pertains to acceptances of offers of judgment), 10, 13, 16, and 17 of plaintiffs' motion in limine (document number 167); motion in limine with regard to statements of opinion that anyone is a "racist" (document number 168); motion in limine regarding rope noose (document number 169); motion in limine relating to EEOC determinations (document number 172); motions in limine regarding plaintiffs Larry Blanton, Charles V. Smith, Sr., Michael Brown, Michael McCurdy, Annette Mickel, Mitchell George, and John Jackson, Jr. (document numbers 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, and 179); paragraph 2 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Shirley High (document number 182); paragraph 5 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Debbie Walker-Wise (document number 183);

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 214 Filed 05/30/02 Page 2 of 6
motion in limine regarding plaintiff Mary Catherine Johnson (document number 185) i paragraph 3 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Desmond Heath (document number 186); paragraph 2 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Arthur Lane (document number 188); paragraphs 1 (insofar as the ruling pertains to the admissibility of evidence regarding prior litigation by another employee) and 3 regarding plaintiff Carl E. Washington (document number 189); paragraph 1 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Donnell Smith (document number 190); and paragraph 1 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Donald Phillips (document number 191) .
During the hearing on May 10, 2002, the court expressly reserved ruling on the following matters until such a ruling should become necessary at trial: paragraphs 7, 8, 9 (regarding the admissibility of testimony by those plaintiffs accepting defendants' offers of judgment), 11, 12, 14, and 15 in plaintiffs' motion in limine (document number 167); motion in limine regarding hearsay evidence (document number 170); motion in limine regarding incidents where PEMCO took prompt remedial action (document number 171); paragraph 4 in motion in limine regarding plaintiff Susie Smith (document number 181) i paragraph 2 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Debbie Walker-Wise (document number 183); paragraph 2 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Donnell Smith (document number 190) i paragraphs 3 and 5 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Donald Phillips (document
2

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 214 Filed 05/30/02 Page 3 of 6
number 191); and paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff George Godfrey (document number 192) .
Throughout the course of the same hearing, the court noted that the disposition of particular motions in limine would be controlled by the temporal boundary of relevance that at that time had not ben fixed by the court; thus, the court reserved ruling on those motions. The court, having thereafter established such a "magic date" by separate order on May 15, 2002, now deems the following motions as having been ruled upon in accordance with said order: motion in limine regarding plaintiff Sylvester Triplett (document number 180); paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Susie Smith (document number 181) i paragraph 1 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Shirley High (document number 182); paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Debbie Walker-Wise (document number 183) i motion in limine regarding plaintiff Dwight Horton, Sr. (document number 184) i paragraphs 1 and 2 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Desmond Heath (document number 186) i paragraph 1 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Arthur Lane (document number 188) i paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding plaintiff Carl E. Washington (document number 189) i paragraphs 2 and 4 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff Donald Phillips (document number 191) i and paragraph 1 of motion in limine regarding plaintiff George Godfrey (document number 192) .
3

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 214 Filed 05/30/02 Page 4 of 6
At the conclusion of the hearing on May 10, 2002, the court took under advisement defendants' motion in limine regarding Brandi Washington and certain matters in plaintiffs' motion in limine. Defendants' motion in limine regarding Brandi Washington (document number 187) is DENIED. With respect to paragraphs I, 3, and 6 of plaintiffs' motion in limine (document number 167), the motion is DENIED. Regarding paragraphs 4 and 5 of plaintiffs' motion, the motion is partially GRANTED, in accordance with the court's prior written and oral rulings. To the extent that the court has not previously disposed of the issues in paragraphs 4 and 5, the court RESERVES ruling until such a ruling should become necessary at trial.
Confirming the oral ruling at the hearing on May 28, 2002, on the motion filed by plaintiffs on the eve of trial for "sanctions and to compel deposition of Andy Landsgraft," the motion is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiffs are allowed to depose Landsgraft upon his return from vacation. Said deposition is to be taken at the expense of defendants. The deposition, however, shall not exceed seventy-five minutes in length. To the extent that plaintiffs seek other relief in their motion, the motion is DENIED.
Turning to the issues presented to this court by the Eleventh Circuit's opinion of May 20, 2002 in Levi A. Billups, III v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. and addressed by the parties in a
4

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 214 Filed 05/30/02 Page 5 of 6
supplemental pre-trial conference held on May 28, 2002, the action of Levi Billups, III, insofar as he seeks injunctive relief, is REINSTATED. Because plaintiffs Allen Hurt, Erwin Curtis, and Meshell Belser were situated similarly to Levi Billups, III, the court, by order of August 24, 2001, stayed consideration of defendants' motions for summary judgment against those three plaintiffs, pending the outcome of the Billups appeal. The court subsequently severed the actions of Hurt, Curtis, and Belser on February 6, 2002. In light of the reinstatement of the action of Billups for injunctive relief, the court LIFTS the stay of consideration of the motions for summary judgment regarding Hurt, Curtis, and Belser. For the same reasons that the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment against Billups, the motions for summary judgment regarding Hurt, Curtis, and Belser are GRANTED, insofar as they assert claims for monetary relief, and the actions for monetary relief are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, to the extent that they assert claims for injunctive relief, the motions for summary judgment against Hurt, Curtis, and Belser are DENIED, and those actions are CONSOLIDATED with the actions of Billups and the remaining plaintiffs in the above-styled case. The actions of Billups, Hurt, Curtis, and Belser are now limited solely to claims for injunctive relief.
Additionally, the motion for injunctive relief by the
5

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 214 Filed 05/30/02 Page 6 of 6

plaintiffs who have accepted defendants' Rule 68 offers of

judgment will be deferred until after the jury verdict.

3P!? DONE this

day of May 2002.

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 264 Filed 10/16/02 Page 1 of 1

,= \" ED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA •

03

SOUTHERN DIVI S ION

02 OCt \ 6 pt\ 3:

ANDREW D . THOMAS , et a1. ,

N.b. U '-S,

\ I"~
U ,)

, i

Or

\,' \
~\lv t..

'>CAOioAURA- T b nt-\

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. 99-AR-3280-S

PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC.,

Defendant.

In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, the 9

plaintiffs who accepted offers under Rule 68, F.R.Civ.P., shall

have and recover of defendant as reasonable attorneys fees and

expenses the sum of $225,000, which the said 9 plaintiffs shall be

responsible for dividing appropriately among their attorneys.

All pending motions, except to the extent granted above, are

DENIED or are MOOT.

Costs are taxed 9/31 to defendant and 22/31 to the 22

plaintiffs who obtained no relief.

The case is CLOSED.

DONE this

/6 4-/:::day of October, 2002.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 248 Filed 07/01/02 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

f:-fl.~ED
02 JUL -I PH I: 37

ANDREW D. THOMAS, et ai., Plaintiffs,
v. PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC., et al.,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

U.S.Li,)I"iL, COURT N.D. OF r'·,L/,H/\HA

99-AR-3280-S \ ~ ,i.1n.RiD

Defendants.

'\f !JUL , -

FINAL JUDGMENTS

In accordance with the offers and acceptances made under Rule 68

F.R.Civ.P., plaintiffs, Otis Bailey, Walter Burnes, Gloria Cunningham,

Alden N. Johnson, Johnny Payne, Alfred W. Ramsey, Shirley C. Robinson,

James A. Taylor and Hilton Temple shall each have and recover of

defendants, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. and Precision Standard, Inc., the sum

of $10,501.00. The said nine separate judgments, which should have been

entered by the Clerk immediately after the offers and acceptances were

filed, have already been paid by defendants to said plaintiffs, and thus

have been satisfied in advance of their entry.

The matter of

differentiating between costs accruing before and after the acceptances

of defendants' Rule 68 offers, and the issue of the expenses and

attorneys fees to be assessed against defendants in favor of these nine

plaintiffs shall, if not agreed upon between the parties within twenty

(20) days, be referred to mediation. Meanwhile, plaintiffs are relieved

of their obligations to file an application for said expenses and for

attorneys fees.

The granting of the Rule 50 motion submitted at trial by defendant,

Precision Standard, Inc., does not alter the obligation of Precision

Standard, Inc. in relation to the nine plaintiffs to whom it and Pemco
d-~

Case 2:99-cv-03280-WMA Document 248 Filed 07/01/02 Page 2 of 2
Aeroplex, Inc. had made Rule 68 offers of judgment in which the question of attorneys fees and expenses were deferred.
The Rule 50 motions made by defendant, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., at trial have been rendered MOOT by the jury verdicts.
In effectuation of the verdicts rendered by the jury against the twenty-two plaintiffs who had sought monetary damages, none of the said twenty-two plaintiffs shall have and recover anything of defendant, Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. All of said plaintiffs' actions are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
With respect to the claims for equitable and declaratory relief made by all thirty-five plaintiffs, including those barred by bankruptcies and those who accepted Rule 68 offers, the court is bound by the jury finding that there was no racially hostile environment at Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., during the relevant time period. Accordingly, the actions of all thirtyfive plaintiffs, insofar as they seek declaratory and injunctive relief, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
All pending motions that have not been orally ruled upon or rendered MOOT by the verdicts are hereby DENIED.
Except to the extent the judgments entered in favor of nine plaintiffs pursuant to the Rule 68 offers have the effect of taxing costs against defendants, costs are taxed against plaintiffs.
DONE this !4--day of July, 2002.
~~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 1 of 31
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Southern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99−cv−03280−WMA

CLOSED

Thomas, et al v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, et al Assigned to: Judge William M Acker, Jr Demand: $75,000,000 Case in other court: 01−13865B Cause: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff
Walter Burnes

Date Filed: 12/09/1999 Date Terminated: 07/01/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Adedapo T Agboola BENDER &AGBOOLA LLC 711 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 205−322−2500 Fax: 205−324−2120 Email: agbula@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd SIMON &ASSOCIATES 1150 Financial Center 505 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 324−2727 Fax: 324−2605 fax ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender BENDER &AGBOOLA LLC 711 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 205−322−2500 Fax: 205−324−2120 Email: benielaw@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emory Anthony , Jr 2015 Frist Avenue, North Birmingham, AL 35203 205−458−1105 Email: BgEmoryE@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon CHRISTIAN &SMALL LLP Financial Center, Suite 1800 505 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203−2696 205−250−6622 Fax: 205−328−7234 Email: KOS@csattorneys.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven A Benefield CHRISTIAN &SMALL LLP Financial Center, Suite 1800 505 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203−2696 795−6588 Fax: 328−7234

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 2 of 31

Email: sabenefield@csattorneys.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles UAB OFFICE OF COUNSEL 820 Administration Building 1530 3rd Avenue, South Birmingham, AL 35294−0108 934−3474 Fax: 975−6079 Email: chill@uab.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Andrew D Thomas

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Charles V Smith, Sr

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carl E Washington

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 3 of 31

Plaintiff Donnel Smith
Plaintiff Sylvester Triplett
Plaintiff Debbie J Wise

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 4 of 31

Plaintiff Cornelius Johnson
Plaintiff Allen F Hurt TERMINATED: 02/26/2002
Plaintiff Desmond L Heath

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 5 of 31

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gloria Cunningham

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James A Taylor

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hilton Temple

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 6 of 31

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Donald E Phillips

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mitchell A George

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Arthur Lane

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 7 of 31

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael J McCordy

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dwight Horton

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Larry A Blanton

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 8 of 31

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Otis Bailey

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sussie W Smith

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shirley C Robinson

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 9 of 31

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff George Godfrey

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Brown

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ronald L Taylor TERMINATED: 06/18/2001

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 10 of 31

Plaintiff Levi A Billups, III
Plaintiff John W Jackson, Jr
Plaintiff Annette K Mickel

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 11 of 31

Plaintiff Shirley A High
Plaintiff Alfred W Ramsey
Plaintiff Alden N Johnson

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 12 of 31

Plaintiff Johnny E Hawkins
Plaintiff Erwin E Curtis, Jr TERMINATED: 02/26/2002
Plaintiff Meshell Belser TERMINATED: 02/26/2002
Plaintiff Mary C Johnson

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darryl Bender (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 13 of 31

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Johnny Payne

represented by Adedapo T Agboola (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A Kidd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darryl Bender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth O Simon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyrone Quarles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc

represented by Jeffrey A Lee MAYNARD COOPER &GALE PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−254−1987 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: jlee@maynardcooper.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell G Allen MAYNARD COOPER &GALE PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 205−254−1000 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: mallen@maynardcooper.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
N Lee Cooper MAYNARD COOPER &GALE PC AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400 1901 6th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203−2618 254−1000 Fax: 254−1999 Email: lcooper@maynardcooper.com

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 14 of 31

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen E Brown MAYNARD COOPER &GALE PC 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203−2618 205−254−1000 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: sbrown@maynardcooper.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Precision Standard, Inc.

represented by Jeffrey A Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

N Lee Cooper (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen E Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/09/1999 12/09/1999 12/14/1999 12/22/1999 12/22/1999 12/27/1999 01/10/2000
01/12/2000
01/31/2000 02/03/2000 03/01/2000
03/01/2000

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed, amount paid $ 150.00, receipt # 200 145668 (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/10/1999)
2 REQUEST of pla for service by certified mail filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/10/1999)
3 SUMMONS and complaint returned executed: upon dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc on 12/13/99 filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/15/1999)
Alias SUMMONS and complaint issued upon dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc mailed by certified mail (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
4 SUMMONS and complaint returned executed: upon dft Precision Standard on 12/21/99 filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
5 SUMMONS and complaint returned executed: upon dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc on 12/23/99 filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/27/1999)
6 ANSWER by defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, defendant Precision Standard w/appear by atty(s) Stephen E Brown, Jeffrey A Lee filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
7 ORDER that parties are reminded of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and 16 as set out; jury cost will be taxed equally filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (SRJ) (Entered: 01/12/2000)
8 Report of Parties (form 35) of compliance with FRCP 26 filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/31/2000)
9 ORDER ; Status hearing to be held on 1:30 2/10/00 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/03/2000)
10 ORDER Standard that ;discovery cutoff 11/1/00 ; all potentially dispositive motions to be filed by 2/15/00; pre−trial conf set 1/31/01 ;jury trial set 2/28/01 by Judge William M. Acker Jr entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/01/2000)
11 ORDER the aspect of the action which purports to seek the certification of a class is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECTION, without prejudice to any claims that unnamed members of the putative class may have, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/01/2000)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 15 of 31

03/01/2000 03/27/2000
03/30/2000
04/03/2000
04/14/2000 05/24/2000 05/30/2000 05/30/2000 06/05/2000 06/05/2000
07/24/2000 07/24/2000 07/25/2000 07/25/2000 07/27/2000 07/28/2000 10/03/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000

12 MOTION by plaintiffs for reconsideration the court's 3/1/00 order filed cs (BST) (Entered: 03/02/2000)
13 ORDER vacating order [11−1], granting motion for reconsideration the court's 3/1/00 order [12−1] ; Cs Mgmt ddl unless by 4:30 3/31/00 pla's and dfts submit a joint proposal of a schedule for discovery relevant to class status and date for class cert hearing, the court will enter such a schedule and will not deviate from it filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/27/2000)
14 RESPONSE by pla's and dft to Scheduling order ; Cs Mgmt ddl unless by 4:30 3/31/00 pla's and dfts submit a joint proposal of a schedule for discovery relevant to class status and date for class cert hearing, the court will enter such a schedule and will not deviate from it [13−1] filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
15 ORDER granting parties joint motion for the scheduling of discovery relating to class certification [14−1], ; the scheduling order entered on 3/1/00 ia AMENDED to allow discovery related to class issues until 7/14/00. a class certification hearing set for 9:00 7/28/00 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/03/2000)
16 MOTION by plas to amend complaint filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
17 MOTION by dft to amend answer filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/25/2000)
18 17 − ORDER granting motion to amend answer [17−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
19 First Amended ANSWER by defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
20 MEMORANDUM opinion filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (DWC) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
21 ORDER, in accordance w/ memorandum opinion, pla's motion for leave to amend is DENIED w/o prej to the rights of the individual would−be−named pla(s) to apply to become pla−intervenors pursuant to Rule 24(b) in the event the putative class is not certified [16−1]; filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm amendment "A" atta (DWC) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
22 BRIEF by dft's Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, Precision Standard in opposition to pla's motion for class certification, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
23 SUBMISSION of discovery (3" thick in expandable folder) by dft's Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in opposition to pla's motion for class certification, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
24 MOTION by counsel for pla to continue class certification hearing filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
25 ORDER denying motion to continue class certification hearing [24−1] filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
27 MOTION by pla's for order to withdraw class allegations , and to amend with additional pla's and claims filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/28/2000)
28 ORDER granting motion for order to withdraw class allegations [27−1], denying without prejudice motion to amend with additional pla's and claims [27−2] filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/28/2000)
29 ORDER ; Status and scheduling conference to be held on 9:30 10/11/00 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/03/2000)
30 MOTION by plaintiff to amend complaint filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/22/2000)
31 SUBMISSION of discovery by pla in support of motion to amend complaint (1 1/2" thick in expandable folder) filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/22/2000)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 16 of 31

01/16/2001 01/17/2001 01/19/2001 01/19/2001 01/22/2001 02/16/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 03/20/2001 04/03/2001 04/16/2001 05/03/2001 05/03/2001
05/17/2001 05/18/2001 05/22/2001 05/24/2001 05/24/2001 05/29/2001
05/31/2001

32 RESPONSE by dfts to pla's motion to amend complaint [30−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
33 NOTICE of Appearance for plaintiffs by attys Kenneth O Simon and Tyrone Quarles of Simon &Assoc filed (SRJ) (Entered: 01/18/2001)
34 30 − ORDER denying motion to amend complaint [30−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
35 MOTION by plaintiffs to withdraw their document (motion to amend complaint) without prejudice [30−1] filed cs (SRJ) (Entered: 01/22/2001)
36 35 − ORDER finding the motion to withdraw their document (motion to amend complaint) without prejudice [30−1] [35−1] moot ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/22/2001)
37 MOTION by plas to amend complaint filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
38 37 − ORDER granting motion to amend complaint [37−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
39 AMENDED complaint filed by plaintiff [1−1]; jury demand filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
40 ORDER Amended Scheduling that ;discovery cutoff 7/27/01; all potentially dispositive motions to be filed by 8/17/01; by Judge William M. Acker Jr entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
41 MOTION by plas for protective order filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/04/2001)
42 MEMORANDUM, opinion, and order: filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) granting motion for protective order [41−1] to the limited extent as set out in this order, cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/16/2001)
43 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc for summary judgment as to Levi A. Billups' claim filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
44 ORDER (Submission) that the motion for summary judgment as to Levi A. Billups' claim [43−1] is submitted 5/24/01 ; Responsive Brfs Due by 5/17/01, Reply Brfs Due by 5/24/01 , filed ( Judge William M. Acker Jr ) motion docket 4:30pm 5/24/01 cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
45 MOTION by pla Levi A Billups III to extend time to file response to dft's motion for summary judgment for one day filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
47 BRIEF by pla Levi A Billups III in opposition to dft's motion for summary judgment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
46 45 − ORDER granting motion to extend time to file response to dft's motion for summary judgment for one day [45−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (DWC) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
48 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc for summary judgment as to Ronald L. Taylor's claim filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
49 RESPONSE by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc to pla's opposition to motion for summary judgment as to Levi A. Billups' claim [43−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
50 ORDER (Submission) that the motion for summary judgment as to Ronald L. Taylor's claim [48−1] is submitted 6/19/01 ; Responsive Brfs Due by 6/12/01, Reply Brfs Due by 6/19/01 , filed ( Judge William M. Acker Jr ) motion docket 4:30pm 6/19/01 cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
51 MOTION by pla to extend time for pla's to file expert report filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/01/2001)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 17 of 31

06/01/2001 06/01/2001 06/01/2001 06/01/2001 06/04/2001 06/04/2001
06/12/2001 06/14/2001 06/14/2001 06/18/2001
06/18/2001 06/19/2001 06/25/2001 06/25/2001 06/27/2001
07/03/2001 07/05/2001 07/09/2001 07/10/2001

52 51 − ORDER granting motion to extend time for pla's to file expert report [51−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
55 MOTION by plaintiff to amend complaint to add PEMCO Aviation Group as a dft filed cs (BST) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
56 EXPERT REPORT of Dr. Stanley L. Brodsky filed cs (not an original signature) (BST) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
57 EXPERT REPORT of George Munchus, Ph.D. filed cs (not an original signature) (BST) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
53 MEMORANDUM opinion filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/04/2001)
54 ORDER adopting memorandum opinion [53−1] granting dft's motion for summary judgment as to Levi A. Billups' claim [43−1] to dismiss pla Billups's action with prejudice filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/04/2001)
58 RESPONSE by pla Ronald L Taylor to dft's motion for summary judgment as to Ronald L. Taylor's claim [48−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
59 BRIEF by dft Precision Standard and movant Pemco Aviation Group n opposition to pla's motion to add party with motion to dismiss included thereon, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/15/2001)
59 MOTION by dft Precision Standard and movant Pemco Aviation Group to dismiss with brief in opposition to pla's motion to add party included thereon, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/15/2001)
60 ORDER granting motion for summary judgment as to Ronald L. Taylor's claim [48−1], re motion to amend complaint to add PEMCO Aviation Group as a dft [55−1] ddl set for 4:30 6/25/01 for pla's to submit a proposed amended complaint, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
61 MOTION by movant Pemco Aviation Group and defendant Precision Standard to supplement record[61−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/19/2001)
62 61 − ORDER granting motion to supplement record[61−1] [61−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/19/2001)
63 MOTION by pla to file third amended complaint filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/26/2001)
64 WITNESS list (amended report of Dr. Stanley Brodsky) filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/26/2001)
65 ORDER granting motion to file third amended complaint [63−1], terminating motion to amend complaint to add PEMCO Aviation Group as a dft [55−1], re motion to dismiss [59−1] ddl set for 4:30 7/9/01 for any materials pertaining to motion to dismiss to be filed, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/27/2001)
66 NOTICE of appeal by plaintiff Levi A Billups III from District Court decision, [53−1] ; notice of appeal, order appealed from and court copy of docket entries w/transmittal letter mailed cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
APPEAL fee received in amount of $ 105.00 receipt #200 166056 (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
67 BRIEF by plas in opposition to Precision Standard and Pemco Aviation Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, with exhibits attached (in expandable folder) filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
68 Third AMENDED complaint filed by plas; jury demand (deemed filed 6/27/01) filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/11/2001)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 18 of 31

07/11/2001 07/18/2001 07/19/2001 07/19/2001
07/27/2001 07/31/2001 08/01/2001 08/09/2001 08/10/2001 08/15/2001 08/15/2001 08/15/2001 08/16/2001
08/16/2001
08/16/2001
08/21/2001
08/21/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001

69 MOTION by pla for order to supplement the record on dft's motion to dismiss filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
70 MOTION by dft for protective order to quash pla's notice to depose Michael E. Tennenbaum filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate docket number 01−13865 B (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
71 ORDER setting motion for protective order to quash pla's notice to depose Michael E. Tennenbaum [70−1] and motion for order to supplement the record on dft's motion to dismiss [69−1] ; on motion docket at 9:00 8/17/01 ; meanwhile, the deposition to which dfts object is STAYED, pending a ruling on the motion for protective order, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
72 MOTION by plas to compel production filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
73 RESPONSE by dfts to motion to compel production [72−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
74 Appeal Information Sheet filed [66−1] (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
75 MOTION by dfts to extend time of sumjgm ddl filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
76 75 − ORDER granting dft's motion to extend time of sumjgm ddl to 8/24/01 [75−1] − "GRANTED AND ORDERED ACCORDINGLY" ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (CTS) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
77 MOTION by defendant for summary judgment as to Meshell Belser's claim filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
78 MOTION by defendant for summary judgment as to Erwin Curtis' claim filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
79 MOTION by defendant for summary judgment as to Allen Hurt's claim filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
80 ORDER (Submission) that the motion for summary judgment as to Allen Hurt's claim [79−1] is submitted 9/7/01 ; Responsive Brfs Due by 8/29/01, Reply Brfs Due by 9/7/01 , filed ( Judge William M. Acker Jr ) motion docket 4:30pm 9/7/01 cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
81 ORDER (Submission) that the motion for summary judgment as to Erwin Curtis' claim [78−1] is submitted 9/7/01 ; Responsive Brfs Due by 8/29/01, Reply Brfs Due by 9/7/01 , filed ( Judge William M. Acker Jr ) motion docket 4:30pm 9/7/01 cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
82 ORDER (Submission) that the motion for summary judgment as to Meshell Belser's claim [77−1] is submitted 9/7/01 ; Responsive Brfs Due by 8/29/01, Reply Brfs Due by 9/7/01 , filed ( Judge William M. Acker Jr ) motion docket 4:30pm 9/7/01 cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
83 ORDER re motion for protective order to quash pla's notice to depose Michael E. Tennenbaum [70−1], re motion for order to supplement the record on dft's motion to dismiss [69−1], re motion to compel production [72−1] ; Cs Mgmt ddl 4:30 8/31/01 at which time motions will be taken under submission, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
84 MOTION by plas to stay consideration of summary judgment motions based on Bankruptcy Schedules filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
85 84 − ORDER granting motion to stay consideration of summary judgment motions based on Bankruptcy Schedules [84−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
86 MOTION by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard for summary judgment with evidentiary submission included thereon (2 VOLS) , (in expandable

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 19 of 31

08/24/2001
08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001

folder) filed cs (Former Employee) Modified on 08/27/2001 (Entered: 08/24/2001)
87 ORDER (Submission) that the motion for summary judgment [86−1] is submitted 9/21/01 ; Responsive Brfs Due by 9/14/01, Reply Brfs Due by 9/21/01 , filed ( Judge William M. Acker Jr ) motion docket 4:30pm 9/21/01 cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
88 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Michael J. McCurdy filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
89 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claim of pla Donald Edwin Phillips filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
90 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla George Godfrey, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
91 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Walter Burns, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
92 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Andrew Thomas, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
93 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Annette K Mickel in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla John Jackson, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
94 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Otis Bailey, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
95 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Michael Brown, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
96 BRIEF by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Mary Catherine Johnson, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
97 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Allen Hurt, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
98 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Susie Smith, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
99 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Alfred Wayne Ramsey, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
100 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Alden Johnson, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
101 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Mitchell George, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
102 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Carl E. Washington, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
103 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Meshell Belser, filed cs (Former

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 20 of 31

08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/31/2001

Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
104 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to pla James Taylor, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
105 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Gloria Cunningham, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
106 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Shirley High, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
107 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Charles V. Smith, Sr., filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
108 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Shirley Robinson, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
109 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Donell Smith, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
110 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Johnny Payne, Jr. filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
111 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Annette Mickel filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
112 BRIEF by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Dwight Horton, Sr., filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
113 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and` Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Desmond Heath, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
114 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Cornelius Johnson, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
115 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Hilton Temple, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
116 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Debbie Joyce Walker−Wise, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
117 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Sylvester Triplett, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
118 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Arthur Lane, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
119 BRIEF by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard in support of motion for summary judgment as to claims of pla Larry Blanton, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
120 RESPONSE by plas to dft's representations that additional testimony from Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representatives is unnecessary, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/04/2001)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 21 of 31

08/31/2001 08/31/2001 09/13/2001 09/14/2001 09/14/2001 09/18/2001 09/26/2001 09/28/2001
10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/23/2001 10/24/2001 10/24/2001
10/24/2001 10/31/2001 11/07/2001 11/14/2001 11/28/2001 12/13/2001

121 BRIEF by plas in support of their motion to add Pemco Aviation Group, Inc. and also in response to dft's motion to dismiss, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/04/2001)
122 SUBMISSION of discovery by plas in support of their motion to add Pemco Aviation Group, Inc. and also in response to dft's motion to dismiss,(in expandable folder) filed cs (Former Employee) Modified on 09/04/2001 (Entered: 09/04/2001)
123 MOTION by plas to extend time to respond to dft's motions for summary judgment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
124 123 − ORDER granting motion to extend time to respond to dft's motions for summary judgment for 14 days[123−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
125 MOTION by defendant to extend time for ddl for summary judgment reply briefs until 10/3/01 filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/17/2001)
126 125 − ORDER granting motion to extend time for ddl for summary judgment reply briefs until 10/3/01 [125−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/18/2001)
127 MOTION by plas to extend time to respond to dft's motion for summary judgment for an additional 14 days from the current ddl of 9/28/01 filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
128 127 − ORDER granting motion to extend time to respond to dft's motion for summary judgment for an additional 14 days from the current ddl of 9/28/01 [127−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
129 MOTION by plaintiff Walter Burnes to extend time add'l 14 days to respond to dft's motions for summary judgment filed cs (MAA) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
130 129 − ORDER granted and ordered accordingly motion to extend time add'l 14 days to respond to dft's motions for summary judgment [129−1] ( by Judge Inge P. Johnson ) entered cm (MAA) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
131 MOTION by plaintiff to quash subpoenas filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/24/2001)
132 131 − ORDER terminating motion to quash subpoenas [131−1] Ruled on orally ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/24/2001)
133 ORDER granting motion to compel production [72−1], granting motion for protective order to quash pla's notice to depose Michael E. Tennenbaum [70−1] under limitations as set out in this order, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/24/2001)
134 69 − ORDER granting motion for order to supplement the record on dft's motion to dismiss [69−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/24/2001)
135 MOTION by defendant to quash pla's notice to depose Andy Landsgraft and Joey Felton filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
136 MOTION by defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc to quash pla's notice to depose filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
137 MOTION by dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard to quash pla's notice to depose Johnson, Sewell and Lee filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
138 ORDER ; Motion docket set for 9:00 12/14/01 for all motions yet unruled upon to be considered as set out in this order, filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
139 BRIEF by plaintiff in opposition to dft's motion for protective order, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/14/2001)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 22 of 31

12/14/2001 12/19/2001 02/06/2002 02/06/2002
02/07/2002 02/07/2002 02/07/2002 02/21/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 03/07/2002 03/20/2002 04/01/2002
04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002

COURTROOM NOTES: Case called at motion docket before Hon. Wm. M. Acker, Jr. on a variety of pending motions; oral argument of parties; order will be forthcoming (V. Flowers, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
140 BRIEF by defendants in response to pla's submission in opposition of dft's motion for protective order, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
141 MOTION by plaintiff to compel dft Pemco to produce David Dyer , or, in the alternative for order for service by USM filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
142 MEMORANDUM, opinion, and order: filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) denying motion to compel dft Pemco to produce David Dyer [141−1], denying motion for order for service by USM [141−2], denying motion to quash pla's notice to depose Johnson, Sewell and Lee [137−1], denying motion to quash pla's notice to depose [136−1], denying motion to quash pla's notice to depose Andy Landsgraft and Joey Felton [135−1], denying motion for summary judgment [86−1] denying motion to dismiss [59−1] ; discovery is DEEMED complete and the action of Belser, Curtis and Hurt are hereby SEVERED ; Pretrial Conf set for 9:30 2/22/02 cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
143 DESIGNATION by defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc of record on appeal filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
CERTIFICATE of readiness issued, cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
CERTIFIED record on appeal with certified copy of docket, entries and transmittal mailed USCA cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
144 JOINDER by plas in EEOC's motion to consolidate for trial, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
DOCKET modification (utility event) terminating party Meshell Belser, party Erwin E Curtis, party Allen F Hurt pursuant doc #142 (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
145 NOTICE of appearance for plaintiff by Tyrone Quarles, Cheryl A Kidd filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
145 NOTICE of appearance for defendant by N Lee Cooper filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
145 ORDER on pre−trial hearing ; jury trial set 9:30 6/3/02 ; PTC held 9:30 2/22/02 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
146 ORDER −By agreement of the parties Clarence M. Small Jr is hereby appointed the mediation in the above styled case filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (MAA) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
147 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings had before Judge William M. Acker Jr on 12/14/01 , filed − Court Reporter Virginia Flowers (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/20/2002)
148 ORDER−the motion of pla EEOC for modification of the court's order of 3/7/02 was previously scheduled to be heard at this court's regular Motion Docket on 4/12/02; mediation is set for April 3−4, 2002, the hearin on the motion is rescheduled for 4/2/02 at 9:30 a.m. filed (see CV 00−AR−2762−S for order of 3/7/02) ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
149 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, dft Precision Standard to extend time one week to file motions in limine filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/12/2002)
150 149 − ORDER granting dfts' motion to extend time one week to file motions in limine [149−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (DWC) (Entered: 04/12/2002)
151 EXPERT WITNESS list by plas for trial filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/15/2002)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 23 of 31

04/19/2002
04/19/2002 04/19/2002
04/19/2002
04/19/2002 04/19/2002
04/22/2002
04/22/2002 04/22/2002 04/22/2002 04/22/2002 04/22/2002 04/22/2002 04/23/2002 04/24/2002
04/25/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002

152 MOTION by plas for order to show cause , and/or motion to hold dfts agents and officers in contempt for failure to obey court's order filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
153 NOTICE by plaintiff's of Pla's position regarding temporal boundary for anecdotal evidence filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
154 BRIEF by dfts in response to courts order requiring parties to set temporal boundary with regard to anecdotal evidence of racial harassment filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
MOTION referral (utility event) referring to Magistrate−Judge Paul W. Greene the motion for order to show cause [152−1], referring to Magistrate−Judge Paul W. Greene the motion motion to hold dfts agents and officers contempt for failure to obey court's order [152−2] (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
155 MOTION by plas to extend time 1 week to file motion in limine filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
156 155 − ORDER granting motion to extend time 1 week to file motion in limine [155−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
158 NOTICE of Acceptance of Dfts Offer of Judgment filed by pla Hilton Temple w/exhibit attached cs (Former Employee) Modified on 04/24/2002 (Entered: 04/24/2002)
159 NOTICE of Acceptance of Dfts Offer of Judgment filed by pla James A Taylor w/exhibit attached cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
160 NOTICE of Acceptance of Dfts Offer of Judgment filed by pla Alfred W Ramsey w/exhibit attached cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
161 NOTICE of Acceptance of Dfts Offer of Judgment filed by pla Johnny Payne w/exhibit attached cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
162 NOTICE of Acceptance of Dfts Offer of Judgment filed by pla Alden N Johnson w/exhibit attached cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
163 NOTICE of Acceptance of Dfts Offer of Judgment filed by pla Otis Bailey w/exhibit attached cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
164 NOTICE of Acceptance of Dfts Offer of Judgment filed by pla Gloria Cunningham w/exhibit attached cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
157 NOTICE of Acceptance of Dfts Offer of Judgment filed by pla Shirley C Robinson w/exhibit attached cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
165 ORDER − dfts are DIRECTED to file a response to motion (doc #152) not later than 4/30/02 as set out filed ( by Magistrate−Judge Paul W. Greene ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
166 NOTICE of Acceptance of Dfts Offer of Judgment filed by pla Walter Burnes w/exhibit attached cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
167 MOTION by plas in limine filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/26/2002)
168 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla's stating an opinion that anyone is a racist filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
169 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine regarding rope noose filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
170 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to hearsay evidence filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
171 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to incidents where Pemco took prompt remedial action filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 24 of 31

04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/29/2002 04/30/2002

172 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, dft Precision Standard in limine relating to EEOC determinations filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
173 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Larry Blanton filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
174 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Charles V Smith Sr filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
175 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Michael Brown filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
176 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Michael McCurdy filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
177 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Annette Mickel filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
178 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Mitchell George filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
179 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla John Jackson Jr filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
180 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Sylvester Triplett filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
181 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Susie Smith filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
182 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Shirley High filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
183 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Debbie Walker−Wise filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
184 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Dwight Horton Sr filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
185 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Mary Catherine Johnson filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
186 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Desmond Heath filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
187 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to Brandi Washington filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
188 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Arthur Lane filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
189 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Carl E Washington filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
190 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Donell Smith filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
191 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla Donald Phillips filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
192 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc in limine with regard to pla George Godfrey filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
193 RESPONSE by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc to plas motion to show cause filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
MOTION referral (utility event) referring Response to plas motion to show cause [doc #193] to Magistrate Judge P.W. Greene (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/30/2002)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 25 of 31

05/01/2002
05/03/2002 05/03/2002
05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/06/2002 05/06/2002 05/06/2002 05/09/2002 05/10/2002
05/13/2002 05/15/2002
05/15/2002 05/16/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/23/2002 05/23/2002 05/24/2002 05/24/2002

194 ORDER−this case comes before the court on a number of motions in limine filed 4/26/02; said motions are HEREBY set for hearing 5/10/02 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4−B, Hugo Black Federal Courthouse, Birmingham, AL, before the undersigned filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/01/2002)
195 MOTION by plas to extend time one day (5/6/02) to file and exchange w/dfts their witness list, exhibit list and assessment of damages filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
196 195 − ORDER granting motion to extend time one day (5/6/02) to file and exchange w/dfts their witness list, exhibit list and assessment of damages [195−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
197 WITNESS list by defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc filed cs (KAM) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
198 EXHIBIT list by defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc filed cs (KAM) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
199 TRIAL WITNESS list by plaintiffs filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
200 DAMAGE list and injunctive relief by plas filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
201 EXHIBIT list by plaintiffs filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
202 MOTION by plas for injunctive relief filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/10/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Case called before Hon. Wm. M. Acker, Jr. on various motions in limine − arguements of counsel; motions were granted in part, denied in part and reserved in part as indicated on the record; deft to respond to plff's motion for injunctive relief in writing by 5/17/02 (V. Flowers, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/10/2002)
203 Notice of pla's OBJECTIONS to dfts trial exhibits filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
204 MEMORANDUM, opinion, and order: dfts to respond to plas motion for injunctive relief by 5/17/02; the court hereby establishes June 3, 1992 as the "magic" date; filed as set out in this order ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
205 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION of discovery by plas to plas motion for order to show cause and/or motion to hold dfts agents and officers in contempt filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/16/2002)
206 RESPONSE by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, dft Precision Standard motion for injunctive relief [202−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/16/2002)
207 ORDER ;supplementary Pretrial conference set for 1:30 5/28/02 filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
208 RESPONSE by plas to dfts response [206−1] to motion for injunctive relief filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
209 MOTION by plas for sanctions , and to compel deposition of Andy Landsgraft filed cs (Former Employee) Modified on 05/23/2002 (Entered: 05/23/2002)
210 REMARK − docketing error − there is no pleading number 210 (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
211 WITNESS list and exhibit list by plaintiff Andrew D Thomas filed cs (MAA) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
212 REMARK − docketing error − there is no pleading number 212 (KAM) (Entered: 05/30/2002)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 26 of 31

05/28/2002 05/30/2002
05/30/2002 05/31/2002 05/31/2002 05/31/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/04/2002

213 SUBMISSION (Second Supplemental) by plaintiffs in support of motion for order to show cause and/or adjudging dfts in contempt, with Declaration of Angelo Hill att, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
214 ORDER denying motion in limine re: EEOC determinations [172−1] denying motion in limine re: racist [168−1] denying motion in limine re: rope noose [169−1] denying motion in limine re: pla Larry Blanton [173−1] denying motion in limine re: pla Charles V Smith Sr [174−1] denying motion in limine re: pla Michael Brown [175−1] denying motion in limine re: pla Michael McCurdy [176−1] granting motion in limine re: pla Annette Mickel [177−1] denying motion in limine re: pla Mitchell George [178−1] denying motion in limine re: pla John Jackson Jr [179−1] granting in part and denying in part motion in limine re: pla Sylvester Triplett [180−1] denying motion in limine re: pla Mary Catherine Johnson [185−1] denying motion in limine re: pla Desmond Heath [186−1] granting in part and denying in part motion in limine re: pla Susie Smith [181−1] granting in part and denying in part motion in limine re: pla Shirley High [182−1] denying in part motion in limine re: pla Debbie Walker−Wise [183−1] granting in part motion in limine re: pla Arthur Lane [188−1] granting in part and denying in part motion in limine re: pla Carl E Washington [189−1] granting in part motion in limine re: pla Donell Smith [190−1] granting in part motion in limine re: pla Donald Phillips [191−1] denying in part and granting in part motion in limine [167−1] denying motion in limine re: Brandi Washington [187−1] denying motion for sanctions [209−1], granting motion to compel deposition of Andy Landsgraft [209−2]; the action of Levi Billups, III as to injunctive relief is REINSTATED; lifting the stay of consideration of sumjgm motions, motions for summary judgment as to Hurt, Curtis and Belser are GRANTED as to claims for monetary relief; monetary cliams are dismissed w/prejudice; as the motions assert cliams for injuntive relief the motions for summary judgment are denied and those actions are CONSOLIDATED with the actions of Billus and the remaining plas; the actions of Billups, Hurt, Curtis and Belser are limited solely to claims for injunctive relief; granting in part motion for summary judgment as to Allen Hurt's claim [79−1], granting in part motion for summary judgment as to Erwin Curtis' claim [78−1], granting in part motion for summary judgment as to Meshell claim [77−1] denying motion in limine re: pla Dwight Horton Sr [184−1] filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (KAM) (Entered: 05/30/2002)
215 MOTION by defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc, defendant Precision Standard for reconsideration of oral ruling of 2/6/02 with exhibits att thereto filed cs (MAA) (Entered: 05/30/2002)
216 Submission of Grounds of plas for supplemental witness list [211−1], filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
217 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for reconsideration of oral ruling of 2/6/02 [215−1] filed cs (KAM) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Case called before Hon. Wm. M. Acker, Jr. on motion of deft for reconsideration of court ruling; arguments of counsel; court will rule at trial as issue arises (Karla Johnson, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
218 JURY strikes of plaintiffs, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
219 JURY strikes of defendants, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Case called for jury trial before Hon. Wm. M. Acker, Jr.; jury selection; Batson challenge (oral) by plff of deft's strike of juror Darryl L. Johnson − arguments of counsel − challenge overruled and jury strike of Johnson stands; daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Jury selection resumed; Juror Rachel Lowe's employer's excuse request shared with counsel − no ruling will be made on employer's request; Batson challenge (oral) by plff of defts' strike of juror Angela Ricks − GRANTED, and juror Ricks is put back on the jury; Batson challenge (oral) by plff of defts' strike of juror Tamkea Moore − OVERRULED, and strike stands; Batson challenge (oral) by plff of defts' strike of juror Martha Cole − OVERRULED, and strike stands; Batson challenge (oral) by defts of plffs' jury strikes of Cloid Barnes,

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 27 of 31

06/05/2002 06/06/2002 06/07/2002 06/10/2002 06/11/2002 06/12/2002 06/13/2002 06/17/2002 06/18/2002 06/19/2002 06/19/2002
06/20/2002 06/21/2002
06/24/2002 06/24/2002
06/25/2002 06/25/2002 06/25/2002 06/25/2002 06/25/2002

Billy Joe Wilson, Mary Ann Oliver and Dorothy Von Hoene − OVERRULED, and strikes stand; Case oath administered to jurors selected; prelim. remarks of the court; rule of sequestration invoked; opening statements of counsel; plffs' test.; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test. resumed; Daily Adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test. resumed; Daily adj.; (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test. resumed; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Jury trial (WMA) resumed; Plffs' test. resumed; Daily adj. (V. Flowers, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/10/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test. resumed; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/11/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test. resumed; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/12/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test resumed; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' rest. resumed; Daily adj.; (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test. resumed; daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/18/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test. resumed; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
220 CERTIFIED copy of Appellate Court order: affirmed, reversed and remanded for further proceedings the decision of the District Court [66−1] w/opinion attached; issued as mandate 6/18/02; before Hunt; filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test. resumed; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Plffs' test resumed; Plffs rest; Motion (oral) of defts for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plffs' case − GRANTED AS TO DEFT PRECISION STANDARD, case will proceed as to deft PEMCO, and motion taken under advisement as to deft PEMCO; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
REMARK record on appeal consisting of one volume returned from USCA (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Oral argument of counsel on deft's motion for judgment as a matter of law − motion taken under advisement; Deft's test.; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
221 JURY instructions (requested) submitted by plaintiffs, filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
222 JURY instructions (requested) submitted by defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
223 Special Interrogatories to the JURY (proposed) by plffs, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
224 Special Interrogatories to the JURY (proposed) by deft, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Charge conf.; Deft's test. resumed; Deft rests; no plff rebuttal; closing arguments of counsel; Daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 28 of 31

06/26/2002 06/26/2002
06/27/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002

(Entered: 06/25/2002)
225 JURY request/question to the court, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Closing arguments of counsel resumed; Court's oral charge to jury; jury deliberations; Request/question of jury to the court − court direct clerk to report to jury that he "respectfully declines to answer their question, but will provide the easel requested"; daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Jury deliberations resumed; daily adj. (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
226 VERDICT that plaintiff Larry A Blanton was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
227 VERDICT that plaintiff Michael Brown was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work encironment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
228 VERDICT that plaintiff Mitchell A George was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
229 VERDICT that plaintiff George Godfrey was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
230 VERDICT that plaintiff Johnny E Hawkins was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
231 VERDICT that plaintiff Desmond L Heath was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
232 VERDICT that plaintiff Shirley A High was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of her race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
233 VERDICT that plaintiff Dwight Horton was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
234 VERDICT that plaintiff John W Jackson Jr was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
235 VERDICT that plaintiff Cornelius Johnson was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
236 VERDICT that plaintiff Mary C Johnson was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of her race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
237 VERDICT that plaintiff Arthur Lane was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
238 VERDICT that plaintiff Michael J McCurdy was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
239 VERDICT that plaintiff Annette K Mickel was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of her race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 29 of 31

06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002
07/01/2002
07/08/2002 07/09/2002 07/15/2002 07/15/2002 07/16/2002

240 VERDICT that plaintiff Donald E Phillips was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
241 VERDICT that plaintiff Charles V Smith Sr was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
242 VERDICT that plaintiff Donnel Smith was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
243 VERDICT that plaintiff Susie W Smith was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of her race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
244 VERDICT that plaintiff Andrew D Thomas was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
245 VERDICT that plaintiff Sylvester Triplett was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
246 VERDICT that plaintiff Carl E Washington was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of his race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
247 VERDICT that plaintiff Debbie J Wise was not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of her race, filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
COURTROOM NOTES: Jury deliberations resumed; verdicts (22) of the jury, in the form of answers to special interrogatories, finding that plffs were not subjected to a hostile or abusive work environment because of their race; written order of the court, based on jury's answers, will be entered (VF, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
248 ORDER (FINAL Judgment) plas Otis Bailey, Walter Burnes, Gloria Cunningham, Alden N Johnson, Johnny Payne, Alfred W Ramsey, Shirley C Robinson, James A Taylor and Hilton Temple shall each have and recover of dfts Pemco Aeroplex, Inc and Precision Standard the sum of $10,501 which have already been paid by dfts to said plas, and thus have been satisfied in advance of their entry; the Rule 50 motions made by dft Pemco Aeroplex Inc at trial have been rendered MOOT by the jury verdicts; the verdicts rendered by the jury against the 22 plas who had sought monetary damages, none of the 22 plas shall have and recover anything of dft Pemco Aeroplex Inc; all of said plas actions are DISMISSED W/PREJ; with respect to the claims for equitable and declaratory relief made by all 35 plas are DISMISSED W/PREJ; all pending motions that have not been orally ruled upon or rendered MOOT by the verdicts are DENIED; except to the extent the judgments entered in favor of 9 plas pursuant to the Rule 68 offers have the effect of taxing costs against dfts, costs are taxed against plas filed: (by Judge William M. Acker Jr) dismissing case cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
249 MOTION by A D Thomas and the other plas for new trial filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
250 249 − ORDER denying motion for new trial [249−1] ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
251 MOTION (Petition) by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc for costs and attorneys fees filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
252 BILL of costs submitted by defendant Pemco Aeroplex, Inc filed (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
253 ORDER that the petition filed on 7/15/02 by dft Pemco Aeroplex Inc for costs and attys fees is REFERRED to Clarence M Small Jr mediator, together with the matters earlier referred to him in the order of 7/1/02 filed ( by Judge William M.

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 30 of 31

09/11/2002 09/12/2002
09/24/2002 10/02/2002 10/02/2002 10/04/2002 10/07/2002 10/10/2002 10/15/2002 10/16/2002 10/16/2002
05/19/2003
06/04/2003 02/09/2004 02/09/2004 02/12/2004

Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
254 MOTION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc for order to place dfts petition for costs and attorneys fees back on its active docket filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
255 ORDER−unless Messrs. Bender and Agboola file a verified petition for attys fees and expenses by 4:30 p.m. 9/24/02 their right to claim attys fees and expenses will be deemed abandoned if it has not already been abandoned; the court will take under advisement all remaining issues only if the mediator reports to the court that the mediation was unsuccessful filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
256 MOTION by plas for attorney fees , and for entry of judgment on atty fees and expenses w/affidavits of Attys Agboola &Bender and exhs att filed cs (KLL) Modified on 09/25/2002 (Entered: 09/25/2002)
257 MOTION by plas for order for status conference on pending attys fee filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/03/2002)
258 MOTION by plas for protective order filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/03/2002)
259 OBJECTIONS by plas to dfts petition for costs and attys fees [256−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
260 257 − ORDER granting motion for order for status conference on pending attys fee [257−1] ; Status hearing be held on 1:30 10/10/02 ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) entered cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
261 MOTION by plas co−counsel Simon &Associates for attorney fees, costs and expenses filed w/exhibits attached cs (Former Employee) Modified on 10/10/2002 (Entered: 10/10/2002)
262 OPPOSITION by dft Pemco Aeroplex, Inc to plas petition for attorney fees [261−1] filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
263 MEMORANDUM opinion filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
264 ORDER adopting memorandum [263−1], the 9 plas who accepted offers under Rule 68, FRCP, shall have and recover of dft as reasonable atty fees and expenses the sum of $225,000, which the said 9 plas shall be responsible for dividing appropriately among their attys; all pending motions, except to the extent granted above, are DENIED or are MOOT; costs are taxed 9/31 to dft and 22/31 to the 22 plas who obtained no relief; the case is CLOSED filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
265 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings in this and CV 00−AR−2762−S had before Judge William M. Acker Jr on April 2, 2002 , filed − Court Reporter Virginia Flowers [transcript in 99−AR−3280−S] (KAM) Modified on 06/02/2003 (Entered: 05/19/2003)
266 TRANSCRIPT of courts charge to the jury had before Judge William M. Acker Jr on 6/26/02 , filed − Court Reporter Virginia Flowers (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
267 MOTION by movant Kenneth O Simon for order to order the law firm of Bender &Agboola to pay creditors with claims against clients funds filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
268 NOTICE (Supplemental) filed by movant Kenneth O Simon in support of motion to order Bender &Agboola to pay creditors claims cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
269 MOTION by pla's for order to deny the motion requesting an order to require the law firm of Bender pay creditors with claims against clients funds filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/13/2004)

Case: 2:99-cv-03280-WMA As of: 07/10/2010 03:59 PM CDT 31 of 31

02/13/2004 02/19/2004 02/20/2004 02/24/2004
02/24/2004
03/03/2004
03/11/2004 03/12/2004 03/15/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004

270 REQUEST by movant Kenneth O Simon for hearing or status conference on motion to require the law firm of Bender &Agboola to pay creditors with claims against clients funds filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
271 MOTION by atty Emory Anthony Jr for order to deny request for hearing or status conference on motion to require the law firm of Bender &Agboola to pay creditors with claims against clients funds filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
272 MOTION by movant Kenneth O Simon for evidentiary hearing filed cs (MAA) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
273 ORDER granting motion for evidentiary hearing [272−1] evidentiary hearing is SET for 9:30 a.m. 3/3/04 ; the purported motion by Bender &Agboola to deny Kenneth O Simon's request is DENIED W/O PREJ [271−1] filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
DOCKET modification (utility event) terminating request [270−1], terminating motion for order to deny the motion requesting an order to require the law firm of Bender pay creditors with claims against clients funds [269−1] (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
COURTROOM NOTES: Case called before Hon. Wm M. Acker, Jr., on motion of atty Simon to require law firm of Bender &Agboola to pay creditors with claims against clients' funds; prior to any evidentiary hearing, the court looks first at jurisdiction; prelim. remarks of the court; arguments of counsel; court gives movant Simon one week to supplement in writing; Bender and Agboola have one week from filing of movant's supplementary materials to file their own supplemenatary materials, after which time the court will rule on the jurisdictional question (Pat Gass, crt rptr) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
274 BRIEF by movant Kenneth O Simon in support of jurisdiction filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/12/2004)
275 BRIEF (Substitute Memorandum) by movant Kenneth O Simon in support of jurisdiction filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/15/2004)
276 BRIEF by Emory Anthony Jr in opposition of jurisdiction filed cs (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/15/2004)
277 MEMORANDUM opinion filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (KAM) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
278 ORDER in accordance with the memo opinion, denying motion for order to order the law firm of Bender &Agboola to pay creditors with claims against clients funds [267−1] filed ( by Judge William M. Acker Jr ) cm (KAM) (Entered: 03/31/2004)