2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.
________________________________

CASE NO.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL NOW COMES Plaintiff, United States of America, and respectfully alleges: 1. This action is brought by the United States (hereinafter Plaintiff), against the University of Michigan (hereinafter Defendant), to enforce the statutory and regulatory provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq., which incorporate, through 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-6, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.

1

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 2
3. This Court has authority to grant a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and authority to grant equitable relief and monetary damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a).
4. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 5. Defendant is a public state university and has a workforce of approximately 35,360 employees. Defendant is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a). 6. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), and a covered entity within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. 7. On June 7, 2010, Allissa Weber filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that Defendant discriminated against her in violation of the ADA by denying her a reasonable accommodation. 8. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, incorporated by reference in 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), the EEOC investigated Ms. Weber’s charge and found reasonable cause to believe that Defendant discriminated against her in violation of the ADA. After attempting unsuccessfully to reach a voluntary resolution of the charge, the EEOC referred the matter to the United States Department of Justice.
2

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 3
9. Ms. Weber is an individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. Ms. Weber has a physical disability that substantially limits, at minimum, her major life activities of standing, lifting, and bending.
10. Ms. Weber began working for Defendant as a Fire Extinguisher & Emergency Systems Specialist in 2005. She remained in that position until she was involuntarily placed on unpaid medical leave in 2010.
11. Ms. Weber’s job duties as a Fire Extinguisher & Emergency Systems Specialist included, but were not limited to, identifying, testing, rebuilding, and recharging fire extinguishers, fire suppression systems, and other safety equipment. In addition, she was responsible for installing, mounting, replacing, and relocating fire extinguishers, operating equipment, and maintaining the equipment. Other duties included administrative functions such as maintaining a data base and creating and maintaining a records log.
12. In September of 2009, Ms. Weber experienced an injury at work that aggravated a pre-existing back condition. She was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease and arthritis of the spine.
13. In October of 2009, Ms. Weber’s physician imposed temporary medical restrictions, which included a 10-pound lifting restriction; the ability to sit or stand when needed; and limited bending and twisting at the waist.
3

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 4 of 13 Pg ID 4
14. In October of 2009, Defendant placed Ms. Weber in a temporary administrative position to accommodate her medical restrictions. Ms. Weber continued working in this administrative role until she was placed on unpaid medical leave on June 1, 2010.
15. In February of 2010, Ms. Weber notified Defendant that her physician modified her restrictions and made them permanent. Ms. Weber’s restrictions were modified to a 25-pound lifting restriction; no repetitive lifting, bending, twisting, crawling, or climbing; and a requirement that she be able to change positions from sitting to standing frequently.
16. In March 2010, two Human Resource managers and two Plant Department managers met to discuss Ms. Weber’s permanent work restrictions. At the meeting, they decided that Ms. Weber could no longer perform the work of a Fire Extinguisher & Emergency Systems Specialist and that she would have 60 days to secure a new position within the University, and would be placed on unpaid medical leave after the 60 days expired.
17. On April 1, 2010, Ms. Weber met with Valerie Palazzolo, the Defendant’s Return to Work Coordinator, for assistance with finding a position to accommodate her permanent medical restrictions. Ms. Palazzolo informed Ms. Weber that there was no guarantee that she would find a job through the Return to Work program. Ms. Palazzolo advised Ms. Weber that she would have to apply
4

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 5 of 13 Pg ID 5
for positions within the University on her own and that she would have to compete for any new position just like any other applicant.
18. Ms. Weber began applying for jobs within the University’s system that were posted on the University’s job search website.
19. On April 12, 2010, Defendant notified Ms. Weber in writing of its decision that she had 60 days to secure a new position within the University, and she would be placed on unpaid medical leave status after the 60 days expired.
20. On April 14, 2010, Ms. Weber submitted a written request for a reasonable accommodation based on her permanent restrictions to her supervisor, John Hirsch.
21. On April 21, 2010, Ms. Weber met with Ms. Palazzolo a second time and submitted her resume. At that meeting, Ms. Palazzolo identified one vacant position to which Ms. Weber could apply. The position did not match her current pay or skill set.
22. Palazzolo never gave Ms. Weber priority for placement into a vacant position as a result of her medical restrictions and reasonable accommodation request.
23. On May 27, 2010, Ms. Weber received an e-mail from her supervisor, John Hirsch, in response to her April 14 reasonable accommodation request that stated, in part, that her request for a reasonable accommodation was not “consistent
5

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 6 of 13 Pg ID 6
with the essential functions of her job.” Mr. Hirsch attached the job description of a Fire Extinguisher & Emergency Systems Specialist. This e-mail further stated that it was “unclear” how Ms. Weber would perform her duties in that position with or without a reasonable accommodation.
24. On May 28, 2010, Defendant ordered Ms. Weber to turn in her work identification and keys. Four days later, on June 1, Defendant placed Ms. Weber on unpaid leave status.
25. Mr. Hirsch met with Ms. Weber again on June 15, 2010, at Ms. Weber’s request. Ms. Weber again asked if she could be reasonably accommodated. Mr. Hirsch did not provide Ms. Weber with any additional information or alternatives to the unpaid medical leave.
26. Upon information and belief, between April 12 and May 9, Ms. Weber applied for more than 80 positions with Defendant. Despite her qualifications, she was not interviewed or selected for any of them.
27. One position to which Ms. Weber applied during this period was a Customer Service Representative position at the Medical School.
28. The required qualifications were: a high school diploma with coursework and/or experience in basic bookkeeping or accounting; 1-2 years retail experience with customer contact; data entry experience; ability to work and
6

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 7 of 13 Pg ID 7
communicate in a team setting; and knowledge of Defendant’s policies and procedures.
29. Ms. Weber’s resume and work experience reflected that she met all of the qualifications for this position. Ms. Weber earned a high school diploma and had five years of accounting experience; five years of retail experience with customer contact; 10 years of computer experience, including data entry; successfully performed her job duties with Defendant in team settings; and, as a five-year employee, had extensive knowledge of Defendant’s policies and procedures.
30. Defendant did not select Ms. Weber for this position or offer her an interview.
31. Defendant applies a “best qualified” standard to all employment applicants, including employees who seek transfer or reassignment. Defendant’s Standard Practice Guide (SPG) 201.22 states that regular posted positions are filled “by the best qualified applicant.”
32. Defendant also has a policy on the ADA and reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, which is encompassed in SPG 201.84, entitled “EEO Affirmative Action Policy for Individuals with Disabilities.” According to Section III of SPG 201.84, Defendant must provide “…reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities, if that is needed to enable them to
7

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 8 of 13 Pg ID 8
perform their job duties. Employees may request such an accommodation by contacting their immediate supervisor…”
33. Furthermore, Section IX of SPG 201.84 provides that: “In some cases, transfer of an employee with a disability into a vacant position for which he/she is qualified will constitute a reasonable accommodation. Reassignment may be made to a vacant position which is the same or lower pay grade as the position currently held by the employee. Whenever reassignment to a vacant position is the only way in which an employee with a disability can be reasonably accommodated, the employee with a disability will be given priority for placement into that vacant position.” (Emphasis added).
34. Defendant never offered Ms. Weber a transfer or reassignment as a reasonable accommodation, nor was Ms. Weber given priority for placement into any vacant position.
35. In practice, Defendant does not implement the reassignment policy in SPG 201.84 for employees with disabilities. Rather, Defendant follows SPG 201.22 and requires employees with disabilities to be the best qualified applicant in order to be reassigned.
36. Ms. Weber was on an unpaid leave status for more than two years until July of 2012. In July 2012, Defendant offered and Ms. Weber accepted a job with the University as a Training Assistant Associate in the Facilities and
8

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 9 of 13 Pg ID 9
Maintenance Unit with a lower salary than her previous position. This position required computer data entry experience, including Excel and Microsoft Office; receiving and making phone calls; and bookkeeping.
37. In December 2014, Ms. Weber began a new position as a Travel & Expense Processing Associate at the Shared Services Center and remains employed by Defendant.
CAUSE OF ACTION Count I – Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Individual Claim)
38. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are hereby re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
39. Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq., and its implementing regulation, 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, requires covered employers, such as Defendant, to provide reasonable accommodations to otherwise qualified employees with disabilities.
40. Reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, reassignment to a vacant position within the employer’s organization when an employee with a disability can no longer perform the essential functions of the employee’s position and a vacant position for which the employee is qualified is available.
9

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 10 of 13 Pg ID 10
41. Ms. Weber is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who, in 2010, could no longer perform the essential functions of her position as Fire Extinguisher and Emergency Systems Specialist.
42. Defendant failed to provide Ms. Weber a reasonable accommodation, including but not limited to a reassignment to a vacant position within the Defendant’s organization where such an accommodation was available. . 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and (b); 29 C.R.F. § 1630.9.
43. Defendant’s conduct as described in this Complaint constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title I of ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq., and its implementing regulation, 29 C.F.R. Part 1630.
44. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Ms. Weber suffered and continues to suffer damages.
Count II – Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Pattern or Practice Claim)
45. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are hereby re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
46. Defendant’s policy that employees with disabilities must be best qualified for a vacant position when reassignment is a necessary accommodation as described in this Complaint constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and
10

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 11 of 13 Pg ID 11
(b). See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6.
47. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendant will continue to pursue this policy as alleged in this Complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the United States prays that this Court: (a) Grant judgment in favor of the United States and declare that
Defendant has violated Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq., and its accompanying regulation; (b) Require Defendant to modify its policies, practices, and procedures so as to bring its employment practices into compliance with Title I of the ADA and its accompanying regulation, including but not limited to: (i) eliminating the application of the “best qualified” standard when considering reassignments as a reasonable accommodation; and (ii) implementing a policy to reassign employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified without competition for the position, when no accommodation is available in the current job. (c) Order Defendant to train its supervisors and human resource staff regarding the requirements of the ADA;
11

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 12 of 13 Pg ID 12
(d) Enjoin Defendant from failing or refusing to take other appropriate measures to overcome the effects of its discriminatory policies and practices;
(e) Award Ms. Weber, and other affected individuals, where applicable: (i) back pay with interest; (ii) front pay; (iii) out of pocket medical expenses; (iv) back benefits, including matching contributions and adjusted retirement dates with all associated rights and benefits; (v) restoration of leave; (vi) compensatory damages, including damages for pain and suffering, for injuries suffered as a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the requirements of Title I of the ADA pursuant to and within the statutory limitations of Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a; and
(f) Order such other appropriate relief as the interests of justice require. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff United States requests a trial by jury as to all counts.
12

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 13 of 13 Pg ID 13

Respectfully submitted,

LORETTA E. LYNCH Attorney General of the United States

JENNIFER GORLAND Acting United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan
/s/ Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Ste. 2001 Detroit, MI 48226

/s/ Vanita Gupta VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
EVE L. HILL Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
/s/ Rebecca B. Bond REBECCA B. BOND Chief SHEILA M. FORAN Special Litigation Counsel AMANDA MAISELS Deputy Chief

/s/ Rachel M. Smith RACHEL M. SMITH Trial Attorney Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW-NYA Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-1613 Facsimile: (202) 305-9775 rachel.smith@usdoj.gov

Dated: July 22, 2015

13

 
 2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 30

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-12582 ) )

CONSENT DECREE

I. Background

1. This Consent Decree resolves a civil action brought by Plaintiff United States against Defendant, the University of Michigan, to enforce the provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and its implementing regulation, 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630 et seq.

2. In its Complaint, the United States alleges that Defendant discriminated against Allissa Weber in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112 and 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2, 1630.4 and 1630.9, by failing to provide her with a reassignment as a reasonable accommodation when she could no longer perform her job because of a back disability; and discriminated against other similarly situated employees. The Complaint also alleges that the Defendant’s policy that employees with disabilities must be best qualified for a vacant position when reassignment is a necessary accommodation constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), (b)(5)(A) and § 12117(a).

3. This matter was initiated by a charge filed by Ms. Weber (Charge No. 4712010-02601) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC investigated the charge and found reasonable cause to believe that the allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability were true. After the EEOC’s attempts at conciliation failed, the EEOC referred the charge to the United States Department of Justice (“the Department”).

1

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 31
4. The Defendant has denied, defended, and disputed the allegations and claims contained in EEOC Charge No. 471-2010-02601 and this action.
5. The United States and Defendant (collectively “the parties”) agree that it is in the parties’ best interests, and the United States believes that it is in the public interest, to resolve this lawsuit on mutually agreeable terms without further litigation. Accordingly, the parties agree to the entry of this Consent Decree without trial or further adjudication of any issues of fact or law raised in the United States’ Complaint.
Accordingly, the parties hereby AGREE and the Court expressly APPROVES, ENTERS, AND ORDERS THE FOLLOWING:
II. Jurisdiction and Venue
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. The parties agree that venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
7. The United States has authority to initiate legal proceedings to enforce Title I of the ADA through litigation. 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a).
8. Defendant is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a), an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(5), and a covered entity within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2.
III. Injunctive Relief
9. Defendant, by and through its officials, agents, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant in the performance of employment or personnel functions, shall not continue its practice that employees with disabilities must be the best qualified applicant for a vacant position when reassignment is a necessary accommodation and Defendant is unable to demonstrate undue hardship.
10. Within ninety (90) days of entry of this Decree, Defendant shall modify any and all policies related to transfers and reassignments as reasonable accommodations to explicitly and prominently state that the “best qualified” standard is not applicable to transfers/ reassignments as reasonable
2

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 32
accommodations for employees with disabilities, and that Defendant’s Standard Practice Guide 201.84 governs transfers/ reassignments as reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. The revised policies shall be consistent with the provisions of the EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html#reassignment), related to reassignment to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation, including but not limited to the following provisions:
a. An employer must reassign an employee who, because of a disability, can no longer perform the essential functions of his/her current position, with or without reasonable accommodation, to a vacant position that is equivalent in terms of pay, status, or other relevant factors (e.g., benefits, geographical location) if the employee is qualified for the position.
b. If there is no vacant equivalent position, the employer must reassign the employee to a vacant lower level position for which the individual is qualified.
c. Assuming there is more than one vacancy for which the employee is qualified, the employer must place the individual in the position that comes closest to the employee’s current position in terms of pay, status, etc. If it is unclear which position comes closest, the employer should consult with the employee about his/her preference before determining the position to which the employee will be reassigned.
11. Within ninety (90) days of entry of this Decree, Defendant shall provide its revised policies required under paragraph 10 above to the United States. The United States may provide changes to these policies and the parties agree to discuss in good faith the recommended changes suggested by the United States and Defendant shall adopt any changes to the policies and procedures necessary to reflect the law’s requirements.
Section IX of Defendant’s Standard Practice Guide (SPG) 201.84 provides that: “In some cases, transfer of an employee with a disability into a vacant position for which he/she is qualified will constitute a reasonable accommodation. Reassignment may be made to a vacant position which is the same or lower pay grade as the position currently held by the employee.
3

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 4 of 13 Pg ID 33
Whenever reassignment to a vacant position is the only way in which an employee with a disability can be reasonably accommodated, the employee with a disability will be given priority for placement into that vacant position.” (emphasis added). Within ninety (90) days of entry of this Decree, Defendant shall modify any practices to ensure that SPG 201.84 and Defendant’s revised policies under paragraph 10 will be followed.
12. Within one hundred fifty (150) days of entry of this Decree, Defendant shall disseminate a copy of its modified policies and practices related to transfers and reassignments as reasonable accommodations to all employees. Throughout the term of this Decree, Defendant will disseminate these policies and practices to all new employees within thirty (30) days of their hire. Defendant may meet this obligation by posting copies of its modified policies and practices on its human resources website, publicizing the new policy in the University Record, and including the policy in new employee orientation.
13. Within one hundred fifty (150) days of entry of this Decree Defendant will provide to the Department of Justice a copy of all the policies referenced in paragraph 12 above, and a declaration from a responsible Defendant official verifying that they have been disseminated to all employees and will be disseminated to all new employees within thirty (30) days of their hire.
14. Defendant shall provide training on all aspects of Title I of the ADA (“ADA Training”) as follows:
a. Defendant shall provide mandatory training to all current Human Resources employees, and Supervisory employees (as defined by the current University “Deans, Directors, Department Heads” code (3D list)) within one hundred fifty (150) days of the effective date of this Decree. See, e.g.; http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html; and http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa_notice.cfm. Defendant may meet this training obligation through the use of on-line training.
b. ADA Training shall also be provided to new Supervisory employees and Human Resources employees, whether by hire or promotion after the entry of this Decree, within thirty (30) days of the start of their duties.
4

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 5 of 13 Pg ID 34
c. Following the initial mandatory training, Defendant shall annually send refresher ADA training materials to all Supervisory employees and maintain the training materials on its website for the term of this Decree. All Human Resources employees, however, shall receive mandatory annual training for the duration of this Decree.
Defendant shall provide the United States with a copy of the proposed training and will discuss in good faith any changes proposed by the United States and will adopt any such changes necessary to comply with the ADA. Defendant shall maintain records of completion of training reflecting the date of the trainings and the names of all employees who attend the training, along with their job titles.
Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Decree, Defendant shall submit to the Department for approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, the identity of the trainer it seeks to use, including the individual’s Curriculum Vitae. The trainer shall be knowledgeable about Title I of the ADA.
15. Six (6) months after the effective date of this Decree, and every six (6) months thereafter during the term of this Decree, the Defendant shall provide a written report (“Report”) to the Department regarding its efforts to comply with this Decree. The Report shall include, for the preceding sixmonth period:
a. A specific acknowledgment that the Defendant has, for the instant reporting period, complied with the requirements of the Decree, including the training requirements, specified in paragraphs 9 –14 above;
b. All copies of the on-line training records maintained for the trainings described in paragraph 14 above; and
c. Notification regarding any lawsuit, written complaint, charge, or grievance alleging that the Defendant has failed to accommodate an employee who may need reassignment to a vacant position as described in paragraph 10 of this Decree.
All information provided pursuant to the above reporting requirements under this Decree should be provided to the Department via overnight courier
5

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 6 of 13 Pg ID 35
service to: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Disability Rights Section, DJ No. 20537-48, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1425 New York Avenue, N.W., Fourth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005.
IV. Specific Remedial Relief for Allissa Weber
16. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Consent Decree, the Defendant shall offer to Ms. Weber:
a. A total monetary award of $156,674.37, which includes:
i. A monetary award in the gross amount of $68,042.47. This monetary amount shall be subject to any applicable federal, state, and local taxes, in addition to other payroll tax withholding deductions, and the Defendant shall issue an IRS Form W-2 to Ms. Weber for this amount.
ii. A monetary award of $7,028.14, which will be designated as accumulated interest on the back pay. This amount shall not be subject to withholding deductions, and the Defendant shall issue an IRS Form 1099-INT to Ms. Weber for this amount.
iii. A monetary award of $1,603.76, which will be designated as reimbursement for out of pocket medical expenses. This amount shall not be subject to withholding deductions.
iv. A monetary award of $80,000, which will be designated as compensatory damages. This amount shall not be subject to withholding deductions, and the Defendant shall issue an IRS Form 1099-INT to Ms. Weber for this amount.
b. Adjustment of Ms. Weber’s retirement date, with all associated rights and benefits, to reflect no lost time during her unpaid leave period from 2010-2012.
17. Within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of this Decree, the Defendant shall send to Ms. Weber a copy of this signed Consent Decree, along with a letter and Release of Claims Form (attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively). In order to accept the relief offered by the Defendant, Ms. Weber must execute and return the Release of Claims Form (Exhibit 2) to
6

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 7 of 13 Pg ID 36
the Defendant within thirty (30) days of her receipt of the Defendant’s letter (Exhibit 1).
18. The Defendant shall send the United States a copy of Exhibits 1 and 2 when they are sent to Ms. Weber.
19. If Ms. Weber accepts the Defendant’s relief offer outlined in paragraph 16 above, the Defendant shall pay the monetary sum within fifteen (15) days of receipt of her signed Release of Claims Form.
V. Additional Individual Relief
20. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Consent Decree, the Defendant shall offer to pay Ms. Connie Thacker a total monetary award of $58,445.47, which includes:
a. A monetary award in the gross amount of $56,566.26. This monetary amount shall be subject to any applicable federal, state, and local taxes, in addition to other payroll tax withholding deductions, and the Defendant shall issue an IRS Form W-2 to Ms. Thacker for this amount.
b. A monetary award of $1,879.21, which will be designated as accumulated interest on the back pay. This amount shall not be subject to withholding deductions, and the Defendant shall issue an IRS Form 1099-INT to Ms. Thacker for this amount.
21. Within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of this Decree, the Defendant shall send to Ms. Thacker a copy of this signed Consent Decree, along with a letter and Release of Claims Form (attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively). In order to accept the relief offered by the Defendant, Ms. Thacker must execute and return the Release of Claims Form (Exhibit 2) to the Defendant within thirty (30) days of her receipt of the Defendant’s letter (Exhibit 1).
22. The Defendant shall send the United States a copy of Exhibits 1 and 2 when they are sent to Ms. Thacker.
23. If Ms. Thacker accepts the Defendant’s relief offer outlined in paragraph 20 above, the Defendant shall pay the monetary sum within fifteen (15) days of
7

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 8 of 13 Pg ID 37
receipt of her signed Release of Claims Form.
VI. Implementation and Enforcement
24. Failure by the United States to enforce any provision of this Consent Decree shall not be construed as a waiver of the United States’ right to enforce any provisions of this Decree.
25. If any term of this Consent Decree is determined by any court to be unenforceable, the other terms of this Consent Decree shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect.
26. The United States may review compliance with this Consent Decree at any time. If the United States believes that this Consent Decree or any portion of it has been violated, it will raise its concerns with the Defendant and the parties will attempt to resolve those concerns in good faith. The United States will give the Defendant thirty (30) days from the date it notifies the Defendant of any breach of this Consent Decree to cure that breach before filing a motion for contempt or taking any other enforcement action.
27. With regard to any of the deadlines specified in this Consent Decree, if a party cannot meet the deadline specified, that party shall notify the other party at least ten (10) business days before the deadline, of the party’s inability to meet the deadline and the reason(s) why, and shall request an extension of time to a specific date. The other party shall be reasonable in agreeing to extend deadlines and agree to a reasonable amount of time for the extension.
28. This Consent Decree shall be binding upon the Defendant, its agents, and employees.
29. A signatory to this document in a representative capacity for Defendant represents that he or she is authorized to bind the Defendant to this Consent Decree.
30. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement between the United States and the Defendant on the matters raised herein and no other statement, promise, or agreement, either written or oral, made by any party or agents of any party, that is not contained in this written Consent Decree, including its attachments, shall be enforceable.
8

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 9 of 13 Pg ID 38

31. This Consent Decree is not intended to remedy any other potential violations of the ADA or any other law that is not specifically addressed in this Consent Decree.
32. This Consent Decree does not affect the Defendant’s continuing responsibility to comply with all aspects of the ADA.
33. A copy of this Consent Decree or any information contained herein may be made available to any person, and the Defendant shall provide a copy of this Consent Decree to any person upon request.
34. The parties agree that as of the date of entry of this Consent Decree, litigation is not “reasonably foreseeable” concerning the matters described in paragraphs 1 – 3. To the extent that either party previously implemented a litigation hold to preserve documents, electronically stored information, or things related to the matters described in paragraphs 1 – 3, the party is no longer required to maintain such a litigation hold. Nothing in this paragraph relieves either party of any other obligations imposed by this Consent Decree.
35. The effective date of this Consent Decree is the date the Court enters the Decree.
36. The duration of this Consent Decree will be three (3) years from the effective date.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2015

s/ Bernard A. Friedman Bernard A. Friedman United States District Judge

9

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 10 of 13 Pg ID 39
AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:

s/ David Masson David Masson, Legal Counsel for University of Michigan
July 21, 2015 Date

Vanita Gupta Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Eve L. Hill Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
s/ Rachel M. Smith Rebecca B. Bond, Chief
Sheila M. Foran, Special Legal Counsel
Amanda Maisels, Deputy Chief
Rachel M. Smith, Trial Attorney
Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 305-1613
Jennifer Gorland Acting United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan
s/ Susan K. DeClercq Susan K. DeClercq Assistant U.S. Attorney Chief, Civil Rights Unit
July 22, 2015 Date
10

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 11 of 13 Pg ID 40
Exhibit 1
BY OVERNIGHT MAIL
[Name] [Address]
Re: Weber v. University of Michigan Civil Action No. [ ] EEOC Charge # 471-2010-02601
Dear __________:
The United States Department of Justice and the University of Michigan (“the University”) have entered into a Consent Decree to resolve the charge you filed in this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is enclosed.
Under the Consent Decree, the University is offering you a payment of $ ________ . In order to accept the University offer, you must sign and notarize the enclosed Release of Claims Form and return it to the University within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter. You may return the forms by mail to:
David Masson Office of the Vice President and General Counsel 5010 Fleming Administration Building 503 Thompson Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340 (734) 764-0304
The remedial relief is offered to you on the following condition: if you accept it, you will be required to release the University from all claims you may have against it, arising out of EEOC Charge # 471-2010-02601 and Civil Action No. [ ] filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Within fifteen (15) days of the University’s receipt of your executed Release of Claims Form, the University will forward you a check in the amount of $ [ ].
If you have any questions concerning this letter or the Consent Decree, you may contact me at ____________ or you may contact Rachel M. Smith at the
11

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 12 of 13 Pg ID 41
Department of Justice at (202) 305-1613. Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX Enclosure: Copy of Executed Consent Decree
Release of Claims Form cc: Rachel M. Smith, U.S. Department of Justice
Susan K. DeClercq, U.S. Attorney’s Office
12

2:15-cv-12582-BAF-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 13 of 13 Pg ID 42

Exhibit 2
RELEASE OF CLAIMS FORM
Weber v. University of Michigan Civil Action No. [ ] EEOC Charge # 471-2010-02601
For and in consideration of the remedial relief made by the University of Michigan, (“the University”) under the provisions of the Consent Decree entered into by, and between, the United States and the University, I, _________________, hereby release and forever discharge the University, and its current, past, and future officials, employees, agents, successors, assigns, and administrators, of and from any legal and equitable claims, actions, causes of action, suits, controversies, damages, and demands whatsoever that I had, now have, or hereafter may have arising out of Civil Action No. [ ] filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and EEOC Charge No. 471-2010-02601.
This Release constitutes the entire agreement between me and the University without exception or exclusion. This Release will be considered null and void in the event that the University fails to offer the relief provided for in Paragraph __ of the Consent Decree within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this executed Release.
I have read this Release and understand the contents thereof and I execute this Release of my own free act and deed. I also acknowledge that a copy of the Consent Decree has been made available to me.

Signed this ______ day of _______________, 2015.

_______________________ [NAME]

Sworn and subscribed to before me this _____ day of ______________, 2015

____________________ Notary Public

My commission expires: _______________

13

 
 Case: 2:15-cv-12582 As of: 09/28/2015 05:42 PM EDT 1 of 1
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15−cv−12582−BAF−RSW

CLOSED

United States of America v. The University of Michigan Assigned to: District Judge Bernard A. Friedman Referred to: Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Date Terminated: 08/03/2015 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 445 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Employment Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Susan K. DeClercq U.S. Attorney's Office 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 313−226−9149 Email: Susan.DeClercq@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The University of Michigan

Date Filed 07/22/2015
07/22/2015 07/22/2015 07/22/2015
08/03/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by United States of America against The University of Michigan with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. No Fee Required − US Government. County of 1st Plaintiff: USA − County Where Action Arose: Washtenaw − County of 1st Defendant: Washtenaw. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (DeClercq, Susan) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
2 CONSENT Decree by United States of America (DeClercq, Susan) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
3 SUMMONS Issued for *The University of Michigan* (DWor) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (DWor) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
4 CONSENT DECREE Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul) (Entered: 08/03/2015)