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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

M~GISTRATE JU L~t./~

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

STAFFING NETWORK, L.L.C.

1591
COMPLAINT

Defendant.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et sech ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Roseann Stuker and a class of female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") alleges that Staffing Network, L.L.C. ("Staffing Network") 1) subjected Rosearm Stuker and a class of female employees to harassment because of their sex; 2) constructively discharged Roseann Stuker and a class of female employees; and 3) illegally retaliated against Rosearm Stuker because she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, t343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful were and are now
being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(i) and (3), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Staffing Network has continuously been a limited liability company doing business in the State of Illinois, County of Cook. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Staffing Network has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Staffing Network has contir~uously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Roseann Stuker filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Staffing Network. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), EEOC’s representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance

with Title VII prior to institution of this lawsuit but EEOC was unable to secure a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission.
9. Since at least August 1999, Staffing Network has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities in violation of Section 703(a)(t), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and Section 704(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 of Title VII. Such practices include:
a) subjecting Roseann Stuker and a class of female employees to harassment because of their sex, including, but not limited to, offensive sexual comments and unwelcome touching;
b) constructively discharging Roseann Stuker and a class of female employees by creating intolerable working conditions as a result of the sexual harassment; and
c) retaliating against Roseann Stuker for filing a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC.
10. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 9 above has been to deprive Roseann Stuker and a class of females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex. The further effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 9 above has been to deprive Rosearm Stuker of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because she filed a charge with the EEOC.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above were and are intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofRoseann Stuker

and a class of females. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex or which retaliate against any individual who opposes any practice made unlawful under Title VII or who has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or litigation under Title VII; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant to make whole Roseann Stuker and the class of females by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the unlawful employment practices; D. Order Defendant to make whole Roseann Stuker and the class of females by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 9, above including, but not limited to attorney’s fees for Roseann Stuker, in amounts to be determined at trial; E. Order Defendant to make whole Roseann Stuker and a class of females by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

practices complained of in paragraph 9, above, including emotional pain, suffering, humiliation,

and inconvenience in amounts to be determined at trial;

F. Order Defendant to pay Roseann Stuker and the class of females punitive

damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 9 above, in amounts to be

determined at trial;

Go

Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest; and H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

Nicholas M, Inzeo Acting Deputy General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

EQUAL, EM~OYM,FI~qT OPPORTUNITY

~s0~t" ;r~et/~/

1

/
l /’Regm~ml ~tomey

Sup¢~iso~ Trial Attorney

Trial Attorney

~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661
(312) 353-8558

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MAGISTRATE JUDGE NOLAN
Civil Cover Sheet
This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Th information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as require by law. This form is authorized for use only in the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff(s): EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Defendant(s):STAFFING NETWORK, L.L.C.

County of Residence:

County of Residence:

’,~

Plaintiffs Atty: Ann Henry

Defendant’s Atty:

Equal Employment Opportunity

~ i

Commission

500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661

02C

159]

312-353-8558

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 1. U.S. Gov’t Plaintiff

III. Citizenship of Princip,,al. Parties (Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A Defendant:- N/A

IV. Origin" V. Nature of Suit:

1. Original Proceeding 442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U,S.C. § 1981a (Sex and Retaliation)

VII. Requested in Comolaint

Class Action:

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case IS NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

Signature:

Date:

If any of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in your browser and

change it. Once correct, print this form, sign and date it and submit it with your new civil action. Note: You may need to adjust

the font size in your browser display to make the form print properly.

Revised: 06/28/00

1 ofl

~/A/09 Zt-1A P~

In the Matter of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUDGP-

NORTHERNDISTRICT

OF ILLINOIS MAGISTRATE

Eastern Divisl~ C

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S) FOR:

db
....¯;~.,~~: ~..=..~...~.:~..........:,:.,~,
..... C, ff, ¢~,.,/.:. : ;,[ [¯ ¯

(A)
SIGNATURE
NAME
Ann Henry
FIRM
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
STREET ADDRESS
500 W. Madison C~l~’~~TcAaTg~ZoIP, IL 60661

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

ARDC No. 06272394

MEMBEROFTR~LBAR?

YES [~ NO ~

CIT¥/STAT~Z[F
Chicago, IL 60661
TELEPHONE NUMBER
(312) 353-8551
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ARDC No. 01187589

(B)

NAME
Noelle C. Brennan
FIRM
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
STREET ADDRF.SS
500 W. Madison
CITY/STATFJZIP
Chicago, IL 60661
TELEPHONE NUMBER
(312) 353-7582
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE}
ARDC No. 06228901
MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR’?
TRIAL ATTORNEY?
DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

SIGNATURE NAME FIRM STREET ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP

(D)

TELEPHONE NUMBER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR’? TRIAL A"fTORNEY? DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

 
 EEOC v. Staffing Network, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)

Opinion

2002 WL 31473840 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY, COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
STAFFING NETWORK, L.L.C., Defendant.
No. 02 C 1591. | Nov. 4, 2002.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NOLAN, Magistrate J.
*1 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a complaint against defendant Staffing Network, L.L.C. alleging that the company subjected Roseann Stuker and a class of women to sexual harassment, which resulted in their being constructively discharged, and retaliated against Stuker for filing a complaint with the EEOC, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended. Before the Court is the EEOC’s Motion to Compel Defendant Staffing Network to Answer Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production of Documents. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery into “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Information is relevant for purposes of Rule 26 “if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “The test for relevance in the discovery area is an extremely broad one.” AM Int’l Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 100 F.R.D. 255, 257 (C.D.Ill.1981). However, a court may limit discovery if, for example, it determines that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2); Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir.2002).
In its motion, the EEOC seeks the following information: (1) documents relating to any investigation defendant conducted as a result of Stuker’s EEOC charge (Request to Produce No. 7); (2) defendant’s quarterly and annual financial statements and federal income tax returns from 1999 to the present (Request Nos. 23 and 24); and (3) the identity of all employees terminated by defendant between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000, and the reason(s) for the terminations (Second Set of Interrogatories No. 14). The Court addresses each in turn.
A. Investigation Documents In its response to document Request No. 7, defendant produced statements from two class members, Sheri Sprinkle and Cheri Bacon, but withheld statements and/or interview notes from seven other nonparty witnesses on the grounds of privilege. According to defendant, the additional statements were prepared in anticipation of litigation and “were taken at the direct of Staffing Network’s attorney.” Def. Mem., p. 5. The EEOC first argues that defendant waived any claim of privilege by failing to provide a privilege log. Pl. Mem., p. 4. It is true that defendant delayed some three months until October 22, 2002 in providing the privilege log requested by the EEOC on July 24, 2002. Nevertheless, the cases cited by the EEOC establish only that an inadequate privilege log cannot be the basis for a claim of privilege, not that a delay in providing the log
1

EEOC v. Staffing Network, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)
constitutes a waiver of the right to assert a privilege. See Christman v. Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 251, 257-58 (N.D.Ill.1999); ConAgra Inc. v. Arkwright Mutual Ins. Co., 32 F.Supp.2d 1015, 1018 (N.D.Ill.1999).
*2 The party claiming privilege has the burden of establishing that the privilege applies. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 220 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir.2000); Ocean Atlantic Development Corp. v. Willow Tree Farm, L.L.C., No. 01 C 5014, 2002 WL 1968581, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 23, 2002). As noted, defendant claims that the documents at issue are protected by the work product doctrine because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation; that is, “the material [came] into existence because of the prospect of litigation or some articulable claim [was] likely to lead to litigation.” In re Bank One Securities Litigation, First Chicago Shareholder Claims, 209 F.R.D. 418, 425 (N.D.Ill.2002). In support of its claim of privilege, defendant states as follows:
[A]s for the statements and interview notes mentioned in out [sic] response to your request for production # 7, the interview notes were taken by the attorney representing Staffing Network at the time. The statements of [Iris] Rivera, [Chris] Thormo, [Janine] Hanigan, and [MaryAnn] Arci, were taken by [Rob] Rutter and were transcribed by Bobbie Larson [defendant’s Human Resources Administrator].1 The statements were taken at the direction of Staffing Network’s attorney on May 10, 2000, after Ms. Stuker filed her EEOC claim. Each statement is signed.
The EEOC argues that the mere fact that an EEOC claim has been filed is not a sufficient threat of litigation for purposes of the work product doctrine. See E.E.O.C. v. Commonwealth Edison, No. 86 C 0236, 1987 WL 13595, at *1 (N.D.Ill. July 8, 1987), aff’d in part and rev’d on other grounds, 119 F.R.D. 394 (N.D.Ill.1988) (“[f]ew charges result in law suits ..[so] the fact that the EEOC had notified defendant of a charge and was investigating it did not carry with it a strong likelihood of litigation”). However, unlike the defendant in Commonwealth Edison, Staffing Network prepared the statements and notes with legal assistance and instruction, which suggests that it did expect litigation to result. Compare Commonwealth Edison, 1987 WL 13595, at *2 (no evidence that defendant expected litigation to result from EEOC charge because it conducted investigation on its own without consulting an attorney).
The EEOC also claims that defendant has failed to show that the primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the interview notes and statements was to aid in future litigation. Pl. Reply, p. 5. According to the EEOC, the documents were created in the ordinary course of business, as evidenced by defendant’s sexual harassment policy. That policy states that defendant will handle complaints of harassment “in a timely and confidential manner” which, the EEOC says, can only be accomplished by conducting an investigation. Pl. Reply, p. 5. But this is mere speculation on the EEOC’s part, and there is no evidence that defendant routinely investigates EEOC charges with the assistance of legal counsel. The EEOC has not presented any basis for disputing defendant’s representation that the nonparty statements were prepared in anticipation of litigation-that is, in response to Stuker’s EEOC charge and any private lawsuit that could follow. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Fritsch, No. 90 C 5446, 1991 WL 277624, at *3 (N.D.Ill.Dec. 19, 1991) (“[a]t the time of its creation, the report’s purpose was to help [defendant] evaluate its response to the EEOC lawsuit and prepare for an expected private suit by plaintiffs”). On these facts, the Court cannot say that the documents were created in the ordinary course of business and, thus, the privilege applies.
*3 The EEOC next claims that defendant has waived any privilege by putting the requested statements and notes at issue in the litigation. Specifically, defendant raised the following affirmative defense in its answer to the complaint: “This Defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment and Roseann Stuker and the other unnamed class members unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by this Defendant or to otherwise avoid harm.” Pl. Mem., pp. 1, 6. Defendant claims that the affirmative defense is “premised on Staffing Network’s sexual harassment policy not any investigation that occurred after Ms. Stuker made her written claim on May 1, 2000.” Def. Mem., p. 4.
Based on defendant’s confirmation that it “is not relying on any investigation as an affirmative defense,” Id. at 5, the Court agrees that defendant has not put that investigation at issue and need not produce otherwise privileged documents relating to it. Compare Jones v. Scientific Colors, Inc., Nos. 99 C 1959 and 00 C 0171, 2001 WL 845650, at *1 (N.D.Ill. July 26, 2001) (defendant impliedly waived privilege by asserting affirmative defense that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior “as evidenced by its own undercover investigation of the workplace”). However, to be clear, defendant will not be permitted in the future to rely on its investigation as evidence of its affirmative efforts to prevent or correct any alleged harassment, or of the class members’ unreasonable failure to utilize defendant’s preventative or corrective opportunities. See Berry v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 260 F.3d 803, 810 (7th Cir.2001) (plaintiff “waived ... claim by failing to press it before the district court”).
2

EEOC v. Staffing Network, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)
In sum, the documents defendant withheld from its response to Request No. 7 are privileged and defendant did not waive that privilege either by delaying its production of a privilege log or by putting the documents at issue in the case. The EEOC’s motion to compel the production of these documents is therefore denied.
The EEOC raises one additional argument with respect to Request No. 7; it claims that even if the documents are privileged, it is entitled to the underlying facts contained in those documents. In that regard, the EEOC now seeks to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 5, which requests a list of witnesses with knowledge relating to the claims or defenses in the case and a description of that knowledge. Pl. Reply, p. 7 n. 4. Because the EEOC raised this alternative theory for the first time in its reply brief, the Court will give defendant an opportunity to respond prior to ruling on this issue. Accordingly, defendant has until November 7, 2002 to submit its response, and the EEOC will have until November 14, 2002 to submit its reply.
B. Financial Documents Document Request Nos. 23 and 24 seek defendant’s financial statements and tax returns from 1999 to the present. The EEOC argues that this information is relevant to determining an appropriate award of punitive damages. Defendant objects, essentially without citation, that evidence of its financial worth “will be inadmissible as irrelevant because any punitive damages which may be considered will be capped.” Def. Mem., p. 6. A Wisconsin court recently rejected such an argument in E.E.O.C. v. Klockner H & K Machines, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 233 (E.D.Wis.1996). In Klockner, the parties agreed that “as a general rule, a defendant’s financial status is relevant when a claim for punitive damages has been made.” The defendant argued that this general proposition is inapplicable where there is a cap on punitive damages, but the court disagreed. Id. at 235. The court found it significant that a jury cannot be informed of the cap, and noted that the defendant failed to cite any authority for its position. Id. at 235-36. See also U.S. v. Matusoff Rental Co., 204 F.R.D. 396, 399 (S.D.Ohio 2001) (“[t]he overwhelming majority of federal courts ... have concluded that a plaintiff seeking punitive damages is entitled to discover information relating to the defendant’s financial condition in advance of trial and without making a prima facie showing that he is entitled to recover such damages”); Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., No. 01-2113-CM, 2002 WL 1162438, at *4 (D.Kan. Feb. 7, 2002) (“[i]f a plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to claim punitive damages against a defendant, information of the defendant’s net worth or financial condition is relevant because it can be considered in determining punitive damages”) (internal quotations omitted); Wauchop v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 539, 550 (N.D.Ind.1991).
*4 Defendant acknowledges the decision in Klockner but argues, without citation, that it has a good faith basis for disagreeing with it. Def. Mem., p. 7. This Court is aware of several additional cases not cited by either party which merit discussion in this regard. In Zazu Designs v. L’Oreal, S.A., 979 F.2d 499 (7th Cir.1992), the Seventh Circuit reversed an award of punitive damages because the district court improperly calculated the amount based solely on the defendant’s net worth without addressing the issues of compensation and deterrence. Id. at 508. In discussing this conclusion, the court stated that it is inappropriate to consider a corporate defendant’s wealth or net worth in assessing punitive damages. Id. at 508-09. Several courts have relied on this language to exclude evidence of a defendant’s financial status. See, e.g., Pivot Point Int’l, Inc. v. Charlene Products, Inc., 932 F.Supp. 220, 223 (N.D.Ill.1996) (excluding evidence of defendant’s financial situation as irrelevant to punitive damages claim under federal law);2 Yund v. Covington Foods, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 582, 586-89 (S.D.Ind.2000) (finding that Zazu Designs is controlling precedent and denying motion to compel disclosure of corporate defendant’s financial information on that basis).
More recently, the court in Jones v. Scientific Colors, Inc., Nos. 99 C 1959 and 00 C 0171, 2001 WL 902778 (N.D.Ill. July 3, 2001), concluded that the language in Zazu Designs regarding the relevance of a corporate defendant’s net worth is dictum and, thus, not controlling authority on the issue. Id. at *1. See also Koblosh v. Adelsick, No. 95 C 5209, 1997 WL 311956, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 5, 1997) (“evidence of a defendant’s financial position is admissible in federal-question cases in which a plaintiff has introduced evidence that would support an award of punitive damages”). And in Kemezy v. Peters, 79 F.3d 33 (7th Cir.1996), the Seventh Circuit stated that there was merely a “suggestion in Zazu Designs that [a corporate] defendant’s net worth is irrelevant.”3 Id. at 36 (emphasis added). The court also noted that “plaintiffs who are seeking punitive damages often present evidence of the defendant’s wealth,” though they are not required to do so. Id. at 35-37.
The Court agrees that a corporate defendant’s financial information may be relevant for purposes of Rule 26 regardless of the fact that punitive damages are capped under Title VII. Indeed, juries are not permitted to know that the damages are capped. Zazu Designs is not to the contrary because as the Kemezy court stated, Zazu Designs merely raises the possibility that a defendant’s net worth may be irrelevant, and the majority of courts addressing this issue have reached the opposite conclusion. And given the broad discovery contemplated by Rule 26, the court cannot say that defendant’s financial information is irrelevant in this case.4 See Scranton Gillette Communications, Inc. v. Dannhausen, No. 96 C 8353, 1998 WL
3

EEOC v. Staffing Network, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)
566668, at *1 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 26, 1998) (“[t]he general purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to promote liberal discovery in an effort to narrow the issues for trial and to prevent unfair surprise”); Hahn v. Village of Downers Grove, No. 98 C 7281, 1999 WL 350861, at *4 (N.D.Ill. May 26, 1999) (“[b]ecause the Federal Rules contemplate liberal discovery, ‘relevancy’ for Rule 26 purposes is extremely broad”).
*5 Defendant also argues, again without any citation, that the EEOC’s request is “premature unless Staffing Network claims to be unable to comply with any caps for damages that might be assigned.” Def. Mem., p. 6. Given defendant’s lack of any supporting authority for this argument, the Court sees no basis for allowing defendant to delay the production of its financial records. Accordingly, defendant is ordered to produce the documents sought in Request Nos. 23 and 24.
C. List of Terminated Employees The EEOC seeks a list of all employees who were discharged from Staffing Network between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000, and the reason(s) they were discharged. Defendant objects that this information invades the privacy of the former employees, and argues, without citation to any authority, that the EEOC’s request is “just another way of obtaining what is contained in an employee’s personnel record that would otherwise be protected from production.” Def. Mem., pp. 6-7. The EEOC claims that the information is relevant to the issue of punitive damages; that is, whether defendant engaged in good faith efforts to implement an anti-discrimination policy. Pl. Mem., p. 8. According to the EEOC, defendant discharged two class members, Mona Garner and Sheri Sprinkle, allegedly for poor performance. Neither woman’s file contained any documentation of poor performance, but both had reportedly complained about sexual harassment prior to being discharged. If these terminations were retaliatory, the EEOC says, then they are relevant to establishing that defendant did not make good faith efforts to implement an anti-discrimination policy. The identity of other discharged employees “will allow EEOC to determine if Staffing Network’s standard practice was to terminate employees for poor performance without warning or whether Ms. Garner and Ms. Sprinkle were treated differently because they informed Staffing Network of sexual harassment.” Id. at 8-9.
The Court agrees that the production of personnel files implicates privacy concerns. See, e.g., Gehring v. Case Corp., 43 F.3d 340, 342 (7th Cir.1994) (turning over personnel files “would invade the privacy of the other employees”); Ellman v. Hentges, No. 99 C 50269, 2001 WL 649508, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2001) (finding that “likelihood of discovering relevant information in ... personnel files [was] outweighed by the employees’ privacy interests”); Graham v. Casey’s General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 257 (S.D.Ind.2002). The Court also agrees that privacy concerns notwithstanding, personnel files may be discoverable under certain circumstances. See, e.g., Tomanovich v. Glen, No. IP 01-1247 CY/K, 2002 WL 1858795, at *6-7 (S.D.Ind. Aug. 13, 2002) (plaintiff entitled to personnel files of individuals employed in same position during relevant time period); Wright v. Hollywood Casinos, No. 01 C 4704, 2002 WL 989457, at *2 (N.D.Ill. May 14, 2002) (same); Spina v. Forest Preserve of Cook County, No. 98 C 1393, 2001 WL 1491524, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 23, 2001) (court ordered defendant to produce personnel files of individual defendants and of females who, like plaintiff, complained of sexual harassment and/or discrimination). However, this is of no consequence to the present motion.
*6 In this case, the EEOC is not seeking to compel the production of any personnel files. Rather, it seeks a list of the names and bases for discharge of all employees terminated by defendant between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000. The Court does not see how the EEOC will be able to determine whether an individual was discharged “without warning,” much less whether this constitutes defendant’s “standard practice,” simply by obtaining this information. However, defendant does not challenge the interrogatory on the grounds of relevance. Moreover, “[t]he federal rules provide for liberal discovery, particularly in Title VII cases,” Orlowski v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., No. 95 C 1666, 1998 WL 26171 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 16, 1998), and the EEOC is not seeking any information generally believed to implicate privacy concerns. See Davis v. Precoat Metals, a Division of Sequa Corp., No. 01 C 5689, 2002 WL 1759828, at *4 (N.D.Ill. July 29, 2002) (finding the following personnel information confidential and subject to redaction: “unlisted addresses and telephone numbers, social security numbers, marital status, medical and health insurance information, criminal history, and credit information (e.g., request for garnishment of wages)”); Sykes v. Target Stores, No. 00 C 5112, 2002 WL 554505, at *3 n. 5 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 15, 2002). Defendant has not presented any basis for withholding the information requested in Interrogatory No. 14, and the EEOC’s motion to compel this information is granted.
CONCLUSION
4

EEOC v. Staffing Network, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2002)
For the reasons stated above, the EEOC’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is ordered to produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 23 and 24, and to respond to Interrogatory No. 14 by November 11, 2002. In addition, defendant has until November 7, 2002 to respond to the EEOC’s motion to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 5. The EEOC will then have until November 14, 2002 to reply.

Footnotes

1

For reasons unknown to this Court, defendant’s letter does not identify the statements of two other witnesses, Crystal Saporito and

Ray Castro, as privileged documents. However, the Court assumes that defendant is asserting the privilege with respect to these

statements as well. See Pl. Reply, p. 1.

2

Pivot Point was decided by Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation; he is also the author of the majority

decision in Zazu Designs.

3

The defendant in Kemezy was a natural person and not a corporation.

4

Defendant does not argue that it will suffer harm due to the confidential nature of the documents.

5

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 1 of 10

NOLAN, PROTO, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-01591

EEOC v. Staffing Network LLC Assigned to: Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 03/05/2002 Date Terminated: 09/22/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Ann M Henry Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312)353-8558 Email: ann.henry@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noelle Christine Brennan Brennan & Monte, Ltd. 20 South Clark Street Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001 Email: nbrennan@brennan-monte.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Staffing Network, LLC.

represented by Donald Timothy McVey

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 2 of 10

McVey & Parsky, LLC 30 N. LaSalle Street Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 551-2130 Email: dtm@mcveyparsky-law.com TERMINATED: 03/18/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Anthony Kolb Purcell & Wardrope, Chtd. 10 South LaSalle Street Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3900 Email: dak@mcveyparsky-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason John Friedl Purcell & Wardrope, Chtd. 10 South LaSalle Street Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3900 Email: jjf@pw-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Duane Sanders Purcell & Wardrope, Chtd. 10 South LaSalle Street Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3900 Email: mds@pw-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Underwood Purcell & Wardrope, Chtd. 10 South LaSalle Street Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3900 Email: tbu@pw-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Randolph Rucker Purcell & Wardrope, Chtd. 10 South LaSalle Street Suite 1200

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 3 of 10

Date Filed 03/05/2002
04/02/2002
04/08/2002 05/06/2002 05/06/2002 05/10/2002 05/13/2002 06/05/2002
06/19/2002 06/19/2002 06/25/2002

Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 427-3900

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of John C. Hendrickson, Noelle Christine Brennan, Ann M Henry as attorney(s) for plaintiff (No summons(es) issued.) (Documents: (1-1 through 1-3)). (ntf) (Entered: 03/05/2002)

SCHEDULE set on 4/2/02 by Hon. David H. Coar : RUle 16(b) Scheduling/Pretrial conference set to 9:30 5/17/02 in chambers. The court hereby opts into Rule 26(a)(1) for purposes of this case. Report of planning conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) and proposed scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16(b) to be filed in chambers. (See reverse side of scheduling order. Copies of form reports of planning conference and proposed scheduling order are available in chambers or on the court's web page.) Mailed notice (pm) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

2 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant sent on 3/5/02 (yap) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by D Timothy McVey, Michael Duane Sanders; Notice (yap) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

4 ANSWER by defendant to plaintiff's complaint [1-1] (yap) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

7 REPORT by defendant of parties' planning conference; Notice. (mw) (Entered: 06/20/2002)

SCHEDULE set on 5/13/02 by Hon. David H. Coar : Rule 16(b) Scheduling/Pretrial conference reset to 9:00 6/5/02, date of 5/17 is stricken. Mailed notice (pm) (Entered: 05/13/2002)

SCHEDULE set on 6/5/02 by Hon. David H. Coar : Rule 16(b) Scheduling/Pretrial conference held and will be continued to and before the Magistrate Judge. The Court will refer this matter to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a discovery schedule and trial schedule, and all discovery disputes. Mailed notice (pm) (Entered: 06/05/2002)

5 EXPEDITED REFERRAL ORDER: Case referred to Hon. Nan R. Nolan for discovery & trial schedule Mailed notice. (pm) (Entered: 06/19/2002)

6 EXPEDITED REFERRAL ORDER: Case referred to Hon. Nan R. Nolan for all discovery disputes Mailed notice. (pm) (Entered: 06/19/2002)

SCHEDULE set on 6/25/02 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Initial status hearing before Magistrate Judge Nolan set to 9:00 7/10/02 in courtroom 1858. Parties shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, room 1870, before the initial status hearing. If the parties have recently prepared and filed an initial status report, the submission of the previously filed initial status report is sufficient. For further details see

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 4 of 10

07/03/2002 07/03/2002 07/10/2002
07/16/2002 09/10/2002
09/13/2002 09/24/2002 10/01/2002 10/03/2002 10/04/2002 10/08/2002 10/08/2002

attached standing order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
8 REPORT by plaintiff and defendant on parties' planning conference (Attachment); Notice (yap) (Entered: 07/08/2002)
10 MOTION by plaintiff to compel defendant Staffing Network to answer plaintiff's first set of interrogatories (Attachments); Notice (yap) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
9 MINUTE ORDER of 7/10/02 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : , Status hearing held and continued to 9/10/02 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff EEOC's motion to compel defendant Staffing Network to answer plaintiff's first set of interrogatories is granted. Defendant to answer within 7 days. Parties to submit protective order. Parties to bring joint proposed discovery cutoff to the 9/10/02 status. Mailed notice (yap) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
11 MINUTE ORDER of 7/16/02 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Entered Stipulated Protective Order Mailed notices by judge's staff; Notice (yap) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 9/10/02 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 10/31/02. Plaintiff's motion to compel is due 9/24/02; defendant's response is due 9/24/02. Ruling on plaintiff's motion to compel set for 9:00 10/31/02. Parties to submit Agreed Scheduling Order at the 10/31/02 status hearing. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 9/13/02 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Scheduling order entered on 9/10/02 is amended to reflect that defendant's response to plaintiff's motion to compel is due 10/1/02. The order stands in all other respects. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
12 MOTION by plaintiff to compel defendant Staffing Network to answer plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and first requests for production of documents (Attachments); Notice (yap) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
13 MOTION by defendant for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion to compel answer to plaintiff's second set of interrogatories ; Notice (yap) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
14 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to answer plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and first requests for production of documents [12-1] (Attachments); Notice (yap) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
15 LOCAL RULE 3.15 MOTION by defendant for leave to file additional appearance ; Notice (yap) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
16 MINUTE ORDER of 10/8/02 by Hon. David H. Coar: Defendant Staffing Network's Local Rule 3.15 motion for leave to file additional appearance of Jason J. Fried instanter [15-1] is granted. Mailed notice (yap) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
17 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Jason John Friedl (yap)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 5 of 10

10/25/2002 10/31/2002 10/31/2002
11/01/2002 01/14/2003 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 03/18/2003
04/20/2003

(Entered: 10/09/2002)
18 REPLY by plaintiff EEOC in response to Staffing Network's opposition to EEOC'so motion to compel [12-1] (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
19 MINUTE ORDER of 10/31/02 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: EEOC's motion to compel defendant Staffing Network to answer plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and first requests for production of documents [12-1] is granted in part an denied in part. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notices by judge's staff (yap) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
21 MINUTE ORDER of 10/31/02 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 1/14/03 at 9:00 a.m. All fact discovery will be completed by 4/1/03. Plaintiff(s) will designate any expert witnesses and provide the disclosure required by 6/1/03. Defendant(s) will designate any expert witnesses and provide the disclosure required by 5/1/03. Depositions of experts will be taken by and all expert discovery will be completed by 7/1/03. (Entered Agreed Scheduling Order). Mailed notices by judge's staff (yap) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
20 MINUTE ORDER of 11/1/02 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion to compel answer to plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents [13-1] is granted. No notice (yap) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 1/14/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 3/19/03. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
22 MOTION by defendant for leave to file instanter Edward C. Jepson, Jr and Angela C. Pavlatos as additional appearances ; Notice (yap) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
23 MOTION by defendant to substitute attorney and to reset scheduling order ; Notice (ar) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 3/14/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing stricken. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
24 MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Defendant's motion for leave to file instanter additional appearances is granted [22-1]. Defendant's motion to substitute attorney Thomas B. Underwood for D. Timothy McVey and to reset scheduling order is granted [23-1] [23-2]. Fact discovery is to close on 06/02/03. Plaintiff to designate experts by 07/01/03. Defendant is to designate experts by 08/01/03. Expert depositions are to be completed by 09/2/03. Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 06/03/03. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
58 MOTION by defendant to strike certain exhibits, responses, and additional facts set forth by plaintiff EEOC in opposition to Staffing Network's motion for summary judgment (las) (Entered: 04/21/2004)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 6 of 10

05/07/2003 05/08/2003 06/24/2003
07/02/2003 08/05/2003 08/20/2003 08/20/2003
09/04/2003
09/19/2003
09/23/2003 09/24/2003

25 JOINT MOTION by defendant to extend discovery ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
26 MINUTE ORDER of 5/8/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Defendant's joint motion to extend fact discovery to 6/30/03 is granted [25-1]. Status hearing set for 6/24/03 at 9:00 a.m. Status hearing set for 6/3/03 is stricken. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
27 MINUTE ORDER of 6/24/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 08/20/03 at 9:00a.m. Parties' joint oral motion to extend discovery is granted. Fact discovery closes 07/30/02. Plaintiff is to designate experts and provide disclosures by 09/02/03. Defendant to designate experts and provied disclosures by 10/02/03. Expert depositions are to be completed by 11/03/03. Mailed notice (lc) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
28 NOTICE by Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C. of change of firm name; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
EXECUTIVE committee order of 08/05/03 This case is reassigned to the Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Mailed notice (nlf) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
29 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE by defendant pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1); Notice. (air) Modified on 08/21/2003 (Entered: 08/21/2003)
30 MINUTE ORDER of 8/20/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 9/24/03 at 9:00 a.m. Fact discovery extended to 9/15/03; plaintiff to designate experts and provide disclosure by 11/15/03; defendant to designate expert and provide disclosure by 10/15/03; expert depositions to be filed by 12/15/03. Mailed notice (aga) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 9/4/03 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 09/29/03 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Samuel DerYeghiayan in Courtroom 1719. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report as set out on the reverse of this order. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
31 MOTION by plaintiff to bar staffing network from introducing evidence not disclosed prior to the close of discovery , or in the alternative, to compel Staffing Network to supplement its responses to EEOC's interrogatories and document production requests (Attachments); Notice (las) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
33 MOTION by defendant for leave to file additional appearance ; Notice (las) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
32 MINUTE ORDER of 9/24/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 10/16/03 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's motion to bar staffing network from introducing evidence not disclosed prior to the close of discovery [31-1] is entered and continued. Defendant agrees to answer interrogatories and produce documents by the next status date.

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 7 of 10

09/25/2003 09/25/2003 09/29/2003
10/01/2003 10/16/2003
11/20/2003 12/03/2003 12/11/2003 01/13/2004 01/30/2004 02/04/2004 02/05/2004

Mailed notice (las) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
34 MINUTE ORDER of 9/25/03 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Defendant's motion for leave to file additional appearance is granted [331]. David Kolb is given leave to file his appearance as additional counsel on behalf of the defendant. Mailed notice (las) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
35 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by David Anthony Kolb (las) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
36 MINUTE ORDER of 9/29/03 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing held and continued to 2/2/04 at 9:00 a.m. Dates set by Magistrate Judge Nolan are to stand. All discovery is to be noticed in time to be completed by 1/26/04. All dispositive motions with supporting memoranda are to be filed by 2/26/04. All responses to the dispositive motions are due 3/12/04. All replies are due 3/19/04. Mailed notice (las) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
37 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by David A. Kolb (las) (Entered: 10/02/2003)
38 MINUTE ORDER of 10/16/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 11/20/03 at 9:00 a.m. For the reasons stated in open court, plaintiff's motion to bar Staffing Network from introducing evidence not disclosed prior to the close of discovery, or in the alternative, compel Staffing Network to supplement its responsees to EEOC interrogatories and document production requests is granted in part and denied in part [31-1]. Fact discovery is extended to 11/24/03. Mailed notice (las) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 11/20/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held. Settlement conference set for 1:30 12/16/03 . Mailed notice (hmb) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
39 WITHDRAWAL by plaintiff of appearance of Noelle C. Brennan ; Notice (las) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 12/11/03 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference set for 1:30 1/14/04. Settlement conference originally set for 12/16/03 is stricken. Mailed notice (hmb) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 1/13/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference reset for 1:30 2/4/04. Previous date of 1/4/03 is stricken. Mailed notice (hmb) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 1/30/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 02/02/04 is reset to 03/24/04 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 2/4/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference stricken. no notice (hmb) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 2/5/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference re-set for 1:30 3/23/04 . Mailed notice (hmb) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 8 of 10

02/11/2004 02/17/2004
02/17/2004
03/15/2004 03/15/2004 03/17/2004 03/22/2004
03/22/2004 04/09/2004 04/09/2004 04/09/2004

02/05/2004)
40 UNCONTESTED MOTION by defendant to re-set dispositive motion deadline ; Notice. (jmp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
41 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 03/24/04 is reset to 9:00 a.m. on 04/26/04. Defendant's uncontested motion to re-set dispositive motion deadline is granted as follows [40-1]. Dispositive motions and supporting memoranda are to be field by 03/15/04. Responses to the dispositive motions, if any, are to be filed by 03/29/04. Replies, if any, are to be filed by 04/05/04. All pending referrals in this action to Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan arehereby withdrawn and terminated. If the parties believe a settlement conference with the Court would be useful, they are to contact this Court's courtroom Deputy to discuss this Court's procedures relating to settlement conferences. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
42 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Settlement conference set for 03/23/04 is stricken. Terminating the case referral to Magistrate Judge Nolan. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
43 MOTION by defendant for summary judgment (Attachments); Memorandum in support; Rule 56.1 Statement; Notice. (gcy) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
44 EXHIBITS by defendant (44-1 through 44-17). (gcy) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
45 UNCONTESTED MOTION by plaintiff for extension of time to file its response to defendant Staffing Network's motion for summary judgment ; Notice (ar) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
46 MINUTE ORDER of 3/22/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 04/26/04 is reset to 9:00 a.m. on 05/06/04. Plaintiff's uncontested motion for extension of time [45-1] to file its response to defendant Staffing Network's motion for summary judgment is granted to and including 04/09/04. Defendant's reply, if any, is to be filed by 04/15/04 [43-1]. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
47 NOTICE by couunsel for defendant of change of address (ar) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
48 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file memorandum in opposition to summary judgment in excess of 15 pages ; Notice (las) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
49 LOCAL rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) Statement of additional facts by plaintiff ; Notice (las) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
50 RESPONSE by plaintiff to Staffing Network's local rule 56.1 statement of uncontested facts (las) (Entered: 04/14/2004)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 9 of 10

04/09/2004 04/12/2004 04/14/2004
04/14/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/29/2004 04/29/2004 04/29/2004 05/06/2004
05/07/2004 06/28/2004

51 EXHIBITS by plaintiff in support of plaintiff's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment [50-1] (las) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
52 MOTION by defendant to enlarge the time to file reply in support of its motion for summary judgment ; Notice (las) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
53 MINUTE ORDER of 4/14/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Plaintiff's motion for leave to file memorandum in opposition to summary judgment in excess of 15 pages is granted [48-1]. Defendant's motion to enlarge the time to 4/20/04 to file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment is granted [52-1]. Status hearing set for 5/6/04 to stand. Mailed notice (las) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
54 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment [43-1] (Attachments) (las) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
55 REPLY by defendant to plaintiff's EEOC's memorandum in opposition to summary judgment [54-1] ; Notice (las) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
56 REPLY by defendant to EEOC's response to Staffing Network's local rule 56.1 statement of uncontested facts [50-1] (las) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
57 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiff's local rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) statement of additional facts in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment [49-1] (las) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
59 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's motion to strike certain exhibits, responses, and additional facts set forth by plaintiff EEOC in opposition to Staffing Network's motion for summary judgment [58-1] (Attachments) ; Notice (las) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
60 SUBSTITUTION by defendant of attorneys (las) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
61 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by William Randolph Rucker (las) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
62 MINUTE ORDER of 5/6/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing held and continued to 6/28/04 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel appeared and report a settlement has been reached. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is withdrawn [43-1]. Plaintiff's motion to compel Staffing Network to supplement its responses to EEOC's interrogatories and document production requests [31-2] and defendant's motion to strike certain exhibits, responses, and additional facts set forth by plaintiff EEOC in opposition to Staffing Network's motion for summary judgment [58-1] are hereby stricken as moot. Mailed notice (las) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
63 AGREED MOTION by defendant to withdraw motion for summary judgment and to strike certain exhibits, responses and additional facts ; Notice (las) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
64 MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan: Status hearing held and continued to 7/27/04 at 9:00 a.m. The parties appeared

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 10 of 10

07/27/2004 09/08/2004 09/15/2004
09/22/2004 09/22/2004 09/22/2004

and reported to the court that they are finalizing the settlement. Mailed notice (gma) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 7/27/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing held and cotninued to 9/8/04 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel for the parties appeared and reported they are attempting to finalize the settlement. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
65 MINUTE ORDER of 9/8/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan: Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 9/15/04. Counsel appeared and reported that this matter has settled that they will submit a consent decree to this court. Mailed notice (air) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
66 MINUTE ORDER of 9/15/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan: Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 9/22/04. If a signed consent decree is submitted to this court's chambers prior to the next status hearing, the status hearing will be stricken. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 9/22/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing held and cotninued to 9/23/04 at 9:00 a.m. No notice advised in open Court. (mw) (Entered: 09/22/2004)
67 MINUTE ORDER of 9/22/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Pursuant to the parties consent decree, this matter is hereby dismissed. All pending dates and motions are hereby stricken as moot terminating case . (Entered Consent Decree). Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
68 ENTERED JUDGMENT (ntf) (Entered: 09/23/2004)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

06/01/2007 14:50:30

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

6

Cost:

eeoc 1:02-cv-01591 0.48

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973592852293997-L_353_0-1

6/1/2007

 
 Millute Order Fonn (06f97)

.9{

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

--- ,

.-

N:ame"of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

Sitting Judge If Other than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER

02 C 1591

DATE

9122/2004

CASE TITLE
MOTION:

EEOC vs. Staffing Network
(In the following box. (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plamtiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(I) o

Filed motion of [use listing in "Motion" box above.]

(2) o

Brief in support of motion due _ _ _.

(3) o

Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due_ _ _.

(4) o

RulinglHearing on ___ set for ___ at _ _ _.

(5) o

Status hearing[heldlcontinued to] [set for/re-set for] on _ _ _ set for _ _ _ at _ _ _.

(6) o

Pretrial conference[heldlcontinued to] [set forlre-set for] on _ _ _ set for _ _ _ at ___.

(7) o

Trial[set for/re-set for] on _ _ _ at ___.

(8) o

[Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] heldlcontinued to _ _ _ at ___.

(9) o

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreementlpursuant to]
o FRCP4(m) 0 Local Rule 4U 0 FRCP41(a)(l) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) •

[Other docket entry] Pursuant to the parties consent decree, this matter is hereby dismissed. All

pending dates and motions are hereby stricken as moot. Terminating case. Enter Consent Decree.

• (I J)

[For further detail see order attached to the

No notices requircd, advised in open court.

minute order.]

No notices rcquired.

Notices mailed by judge's staff. Notified counsel by telephone.

SEP 232004

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AD 450 fOnTI. Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

7

courtroom

MW

deputy's

initials

mailing deputy initials

t>-'-· .~-:);.-
§~. ~ .,~;;

,_""IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

. . Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

STAFFING NETWORK, L.L.C.

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02C 1591 Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Magistrate Judge Nolan

CONSENT DECREE

THE LITIGATION Q!}~M¥ch 5, 2002, Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (the "EEOC") filed its complaint in this action alleging that Defendant Staffing

Network, LLC ("Staffing Network" or "Defendant") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 ("Title VII") by subjecting Charging Party, Roseann Stuker, and a class of females

employees to harassment because of their sex, constructively discharging Roseann Stuker, and

retaliating against Roseann Stuker for filing a charge of discrimination with EEOC. On May 6,

2002, Staffing Network filed its answer in which it denied the allegations of the Complaint.

2. As a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, EEOC

and Staffing Network have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this

Consent Decree. This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out

of the Complaint filed by EEOC in this action. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be deemed

I

-- :".--. - ";

.\- ..

-.'.

to constitute an admission by either party with respect to the claims or defenses of the other.

FINDINGS

3.

Having examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the

pleadings, record, and stipulations ofthe parties, the Court finds the following:

A. This Court has jurisdiction ofthe subject matter of this action and of the

parties to this case;

B. The terms of this Decree are adequate, reasonable, equitable and just and

the rights of the Charging Party, the EEOC, Staffing Network, and the public interest are

adequately protected by this Decree; and

C. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title

VII, and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree

will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the Charging Party, the

EEOC, Staffing Network, and the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

NON-DISCRIMINATION

4. Staffing Network, its directors, officers, agents, assigns, employees, and

successors are permanently enjoined from (A) engaging in any employment practice which

discriminates on ihebasis of sex; (B) engaging in or being a party to any action, policy or

practice that is intended to or is known to them to have the effect of sexually harassing any

female employee; andlor (C) creating, facilitating or tolerating the existence of a work

environment that is sexually hostile to female employees.

,5. , St!iffing Network, its directors, officers, agents, assigns, employees, and

2

successors shall notr5ltaliate in any way against any person because such person has opposed any

practice made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge of Discrimination under Title VII,

testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title

VII, or asserted any rights under or benefitted from this Decree.

. MONETARY RELIEF FOR CLASS MEMBERS

6. Staffing Network shall pay monetary damages totaling $400,000 to Roseann

Randall f/kIa Roseann Stuker, Mona Gamer, Janie Godinez, Sendi Andrade, Cheri Bacon,

Delores Padilla, and Sherri Sprinkle (referred to collectively as "Class Members") by way of

immediate payments, as well as structured settlements. The division of the total monetary relief

among the Class Members is as follows:

Roseann Randall $165,000

Mona Garner

$85,000

Janie Godinez

$50,000

Sendi Andrade

$25,000

Cheri Bacon

$25,000

Delores Padilla

$25,000

Sherri Sprinkle

$25,000

7. EEOC will mail a copy of the appropriate release agreement and reinsurance

contract (attached hereto as Exhibits A through G and incorporated herein) to the Class

Members. The. Class Members must execute and return the release agreements and reinsurance

contracts to EE.ere. EEOC will send to Staffing Network the executed release agreements and

reinsurance contracts it receives from the Class Members.

3

..

<

8. Within 30 business days after receipt by Staffing Network of the release

agreements and reinsurance contracts, Staffing Network or its insurer shall issue and mail a

check payable to each Class Member for the amount of her immediate payment as provided in

her release agreement at the address for that Class Member provided to Staffing Network by

EEOC. Staffing Network or its insurer shall also mail copies of the checks to EEOC. As per the

terms of the reinsurance contracts, the remaining benefits will be paid on September 10, 2006, by

checks payable to each Class Member and sent to the address for that Class Member provided to

Staffing Network by EEOC.

POSTING OF NOTICE

9. Within five (5) days following entry of this Decree, Staffing Network shall post a

same-sized copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit H to this Decree in a conspicuous location

easily accessible to and commonly frequented by Staffing Network's employees at each of

Staffing Network's office locations for the duration of this Decree. Staffing Network shall

ensure that the postings are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Staffing

Network shall certify to the EEOC in writing within ten (10) days after entry of this Decree that

the copies ofthe Notice have been properly posted and the location of each such posting. Within

twenty (20) days of opening a new office location, Staffing Network shall certify in writing to the

EEOC that a posting has been properly posted at such location. The Notices shall remain posted

for a period oftl!J:e~ (3) years from the date of entry of this Decree.

RECORD KEEPING

10. To .enable the EEOC to monitor the relief afforded by this Decree for the duration

of this Decree, Staffing Network shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by

4

the EEOC all documents and records which refer or relate to employee complaints regarding alleged sexual harassment or retaliation made subsequent to the entry of this Decree. Such records shall include the name of the complainant, the date ofthe complaint, what was alleged, the name of any witnesses, what actions Staffing Network took to resolve the complaint, and the resolution ofthe complaint.
11. Staffing Network shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 10 above available for inspection and copying within ten (10) days after the EEOC so requests. In addition, Staffing Network shall make available all persons within its employ whom the EEOC reasonably request~Jor the purpose of verifying compliance with this Decree, and shall permit the EEOC to enter Staffing Network's premises during regular business hours for such purpose on five (5) days advance business notice by EEOC.
12. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation Defendant may otherwise have to maintain records under Title VII or any other law or regulation.
REPORTING 13. Staffing Network shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports twice ahnually for a period of three (3) years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after entry ofthe Decree. The final report shall be due thirty-six (36) months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain:
A. A description of each complaint of sexual harassment or retaliation, including the name of the complainant, the date of the complaint, what was alleged, the names of any witnesses, what actions Staffing Network took to resolve the complaint, and the resolution of the complaint; and
5

..!.

'-

B... A certification by Staffing Network that the Notice required to be posted

in Paragraph 9, above, remained posted during the entire six (6) month

period preceding the report.

ADOPTI()N AND DISTRIBUTION OF REVISED POLICY AGAINST SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

14. Within fourteen (14) days after entry of this Decree, Staffing Network shall revise

its sexual harassment policy (the "Policy") as necessary to (A) define sexual harassment and give

examples of behavior that could constitute sexual harassment; (B) provide that employees can

complain of sexual harassment to any person in the chain of command above the employee or

directly to humai1re~()urces personnel; (C) provide that employees are not required to complain

of harassment to a person against whom they allege harassment; (D) provide that Staffing

Network will protect the confidentiality of harassment complaints to the extent possible; and (E)

provide that employees who complain of sexual harassment or provide information related to

such complaints will not be retaliated against and that employees engaging in retaliation will be

subject to discipline. Within twenty-one (21) days after entry of this Decree, Staffing Network

shall distribute a copy of the Policy to all current employees and shall provide a copy of the

policy to EEOC.

15. The Policy shall be included in any relevant policy or employee manuals kept by

Staffing Network. The Policy shall also be posted in a conspicuous and accessible place for all

employees at each of Staffing Network's locations.

16. A copy ofthe Policy shall be distributed to each new employee on the day the

employee is hired. The manager responsible for distributing the Policy to each new employee

6

shall review the Policy with the employee. TRAINING
17. Stll:ffing Network shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII as follows:
A. Defendant shall retain and pay for a consultant/lecturer ("trainer"), approved by the EEOC, to provide training during each of the three years covered by this Decree with respect to sexual harassment and retaliation. This training shall include (but need not be limited to) a detailed discussion of the law, Staffing Network's complaint procedure, and the role of managers and supervisors in maintaining a workplace free of sexual harassment.
B. . The training will be provided to all Staffing Network employees (excluding temporary employees who work for Staffing Network's customers) employed at the time of the training. A registry of attendance shall be retained by Staffing Network for the duration of theco,Il~ent Decree.
C. Staffing Network shall first provide training in within ninety (90) calendar days ofthe entry of this Consent Decree.
18. Staffing Network shall obtain the EEOC's approval of its proposed trainer prior to each year's set of training sessions. Staffing Network shall submit the name, address, telephone number, resume, and training proposal of the proposed trainer, together with the date(s) of the proposed training sessions to the EEOC within thirty (30) calendar days prior to the first day of the proposed date(s) of training. The EEOC shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer(s). In the event the EEOC.dolls not approve Staffing Network's designated trainer(s), Staffing Network
7

shall have fifteen (15) calendar days to identify an alternate trainer. The EEOC shall have fifteen (15) calendar daysfrorn the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the alternate trainer. In the event the EEOC does not approve Staffing Network's alternate trainer, the EEOC shall designate the trainer to be retained and paid for by Staffing Network. Even though the EEOC has approved of or designated a trainer for trainings one year, it is not required to approve, of or designate the same trainer for future training sessions.
19. Staffing Network agrees to provide the EEOC with any and all copies of pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written rnaterials provided to the participants of the training sessions.
20. Staffing Network shall certify to the EEOC in writing within five (5) business days after the trainings have occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the dates, location and duration of the trainings; (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance; and (iii) a listing of all current employees as of the date of the training.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 21. In the event that either party believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provisions ofthe Decree, the complaining party shall notify the alleged non-complying party in writing of such non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party fifteen (15) days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged noncompliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within fifteen (IS) days, the
8

'.
complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief. DURATION OF DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
22. Subject to paragraph 21, all provisions of this Decree shall be in effect for a period of three (3) years immediately foIlowing entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the three (3) year period, any disputes under Paragraph 21, above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 23. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, assigns and successors of Staffing Network. 24. Iiany provision(s) of the Decree are found to be unlawful, only such provision(s) shan be severed, and the remainder of the Decree shall remain in fun force and effect. 25. When the Decree requires the submission by Defendant of documents to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to: Ann Henry, Staffing Network Settlement, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago District Office, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. When the Decree requires the submission by the EEOC of documents, they shall be mailed to: Tom Underwood, Purcell &Wadrope, Chartered, 10 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1200, Chicago, Illinois 60603.
9

For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Il1inois 60661 (312) 353-855,,,8,_ _

For STAFFING NETWORK, LLC

/
Wayne Williams President & CEO
GLm~
AnnM. Henry Trial Attorney

ENTER:

10

,",
'.

For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY LLC COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-8558

For STAFFING NETWORK,

John C. Hendrickson Regional Attorney

----,~27.~~====--...._~ee?'" ~ayne Wllhams President & CEO

Ann M. Henry Trial Attorney
ENTER:

The Honorable Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan United States District Court

Date:

11

as
hibits
~-~.;'" "-co ,-]b",., --'
, ._--",.-\<:
.,,;,,; -'- :':f{1;, .
. , ;:..:::',~:,:".?:--
-.'0

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - September 2004

Page 1 of 1

z EEOC v. Staffing Network, LLC No. 02C 1591 (N.D. Ill. September 22, 2004)
The Chicago District Office filed this Title VII action alleging that defendant, an employment agency with its headquarters in a suburb of Chicago and offices in 12 other states, subjected Charging Party and other women employed in the Chicago metropolitan area to sexual harassment in the form of unwelcome and offensive sexual comments and touching, primarily by defendant's Director of Operations. The harassment resulted in the constructive discharge of Charging Party, who was a high earning sales representative, and another woman. The district office also alleged that in retaliation for Charging Party filing a sex discrimination charge, defendant filed suit against her for breach of a noncompetition agreement when she opened her own employment agency and accepted business from some of defendant's customers. Defendant had threatened to sue other former employees for such breaches but had never done so.
The suit was resolved by a three-year consent decree under which defendant will pay a total of $400,000 in damages to seven claimants ($165,000 to Charging Party and $25,000 - $85,000 to the other six women). The decree permanently enjoins defendant from discriminating on the basis of sex and from creating or tolerating a work environment sexually hostile to female employees, and provides that defendant will not engage in retaliation. The decree requires that defendant revise its sexual harassment policy to, among other things, specify behavior that can constitute sexual harassment and clarify that employees can complain to anyone higher in authority than themselves or to human resources. Defendant is required to report twice annually for three years on sexual harassment and retaliation complaints and their resolution.

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement09-04.html

6/1/2007