'
3 4 ,I 6 1
' -~ '

Callslelll2l:l0ll6l-lcllvl-l0l0171161111-1R11S11M111111D11o1c1u11m11e11n1t 1-1 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 1 of 6

111111111111111111 111111 IIIII II 1111

06-( :V-llfi761-CMI'

--FILED

ENTERED

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY

- - LODGED_ _RECEIVED

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION MAY 3 1 1006 DJ

SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT )50 ~M~ARCADERO, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-1260

M Si:ATTLE

ClVII( U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTtfi.N DISTRICT OF WA.SHIHGTON

B'(

DEPUTY

.IOI·IN STANLEY, ACTING, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY WESLEY KATAHIRA, SENIOR TRIAL ATIORNEY MOLLY KUCUK, TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SurrE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 TEL: (206) 220-6892 FAX: (206) 220-6911 Molly .Kucuk(ii!eeoc.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

·:;-y 22
1 23 "
J '. 25
0

Plaintiff:
v.

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL llr:MAND

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENtERS OF
WASHINGTON, INC., LES S(~'IIWAB WAR FHOUSE CENTER, INC.,

Defendants.

Ill Ill
COMI'l,AIJ",T- P!!gc I of6

OOUALtMrWYMEN r
{tPI'ORTL!NIIl'(l~MII\.~1(~""
So•tlo lliotricl orr... 9Q9 f"ml A•enuo, Suilf ~00
Srolllo, Wn•llia''"" ~~ 10~-IOi l T<leploNt' (:lll&)l!U·~~~~
'""'"d"'' {:1116) zz1~1m 1
Till!. (ZD~Illl~(,!!l

Case 2:06-cv-00761-RSM Document 1-1 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 2 of 6

NATURIO Of THE ACTIO!:!

'

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acl of1964 (11Title VJII1) and Title I

3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appro~

4 priate relief to Magcn Morris1 Jennifer Strange and similarly situated individuals who were 5 adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the

EEOC") alleges that defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. and Lcs Schwab
7
Warehouse C~nter, Inc. (collectively reterred to herein as "Les Schwab'' or ''defendants")
' violated Title VTI by discriminating against Ms. Morris, Ms. Strartge and similarly sitL~ated

Ill individuals on the basis of sex when defCndant~ failed to provide training opportunities to them II and when it failed to promQte them to management positions on the basis of sex, The EEOC also

12 alleges that Lc:s Schwab vioh:tted Title VII when it tailed to hitc J'~male applicants for positions

13 in the sale/service departments of Lcs Schwab Tire Center facilities on the basis ofsex.

"
15
I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and

17

1345. '!'his action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(l) and (3) of

18

Title Vll of the Civil Righl!i Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq.

19

("Title VII") and section I02 of the Civil Rights Act ofl991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a.

2.
"
22
2]
3.

The employment practices alleged to he ~1n lawful were commlttod within the jurisdiction of the United States Di::.tricl Court for the Western District of Washington.
PARTIES Plaintift; the Equal Employment Opporlunity Commission. is the agency oflhe lJnited

25

States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of

COM'PJ ,r\INT·l•age 2 of6

~Q~I•llf'oiPW'I'."'II:I'O'
IIPI'IJK'niNfTYC'OMMIS!ilON
St•t!IIDinrictOm.. !109 Fin I .-l.•onuo, SuitocOOO Snl!lo,W.uldllf!OO ~iiJOoi-IIIGl
.• "'ph""•' (111116) 1111-•011}
~-··- (106) l2!J-6'1JI
TDD< (l:(Ni) ~().liBB.:!

Case 2:06-cv-00761-RSM Document 1-1 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 3 of 6

2
3 4.
4 5
7
5.
'
9 10 II
12 6.
13
"
"
"17 7.
18
"
20 21
24 25

Title V1!, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(!)( I) and (3) of
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). At all relt:vant times, defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. and Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc. have continuously been employers engaged in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70 I(b), (g), and (h) of Title VIJ, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c(b), (g), and (h).
At all relevant times, defendants Les Schwab Tire Center$ of Washington, Inc. Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Tnc. have been corporation~ continuously doing business in
the State of Washington and has continuously had at least 15 employees. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Magcn Morris and Jennifer Strange filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violation:; of Till!.': VII by Les Schwab. All conditions precedenllo lhf;': institution Qfthis lawsuit have been tultillcd. Since alleasl January 1, 2004, defendants have engaged in unlawful employment
practices at their facilities In Washington state and other states in which they conduct
business in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). These practices include discriminating against Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange and similarly situated females based on sex; when they failed to train thcrn for management positions and when they tailed to promote them into management positions. Further, defendants discriminated against female applicants for $ales/service positions when they failed to hire them because of sex.

COMPLAINT· Page 3 of6

OOIJAL E.'IIPLOYMEIW OPfOI'tTI:'I nYCOlt-'oli!'.SION
~~· !)l,ci,r om..
io'JitFir<tAI'flii><,Sal!<401
S••lll" l''"liliJlOIWI 111111-r.l*l T<l<phon.o (;!~,;):1:111-Mu p,.,;lllih: (l~~)lli11!111
Til~' 0~6):1.;1~

Case 2:06-cv-00761-RSM Document 1-1 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 4 of 6

The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Mi;.

2

Morris! Ms. Strange, and similarly situated individuals of' equal employment

3

opportnnitie.s and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants or employees

because of the discrlmination that occurred.

5 9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

6
intentionaL

7

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with

'

9

malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Morris, Ms.

10

Strange and similarly situated individuals.

II

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injnm::lion ~njoining defendants and their officers, agents, succ~:~sson;,

14 15
"17 B.

assigns, and all per~ons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in discrimination against any of their employees.. Order defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which

prevent their employees from being subjected 1n discrimination and which eradicate the

effects ofpas.t and present unlawful emph,yment practices.
20 c. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated
21
individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to
22
be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the et1C:cts of

their unlawful employment practices described above.
"
25

COMPLAINT· Page 4of6

II.Qt'AI- I:N~W~'ME~'f

QPI'<)llTI!NI'ITCW!IMI8SlON
s...d. Dh•riu om..

!1011 FIL-.1/I.l'OIULO, ~Mit< 400

w.. s ••~~~<,

~~.~._

'1111114-111011

To1opbon•= llllLloplO.MA.l
~..nmuoo 1111~) 1111·6'1 II
·me, t1111iPJI1.6iiiJ

Case 2:06-cv-00761-RSM Document 1-1 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 5 of 6

D. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated

2

individuals by providing compens.:ttion fof past and future pecuniary losses resulting

l

from the unlawful Crt1ployn1cnt practices described in paragraph 7 above, including

4

without limitation past and future out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at

l

trial.

E. Order dcfcndahts to mak.e whole Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated

7

individuals by providing compensation for past and future noh-pecuniary losse-; resulting

'

'

from the unlawfUl practices complained (lf in paragraph 7 above, including without

10

limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment oflitC, in amounts to

II

determined at trial.

12 F. Order defendants to pay Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange and similarly ~ituated individuals

ll
14
" G.
16
1-1.
17

punitive dw.nage.s for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragruph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

" Ill Ill

20 Iii

21

Ill

22
Ill
23

Ill
24

25 Ill

COMPLA.I.r\T-l'age 5' or6

EQIIAI ~Mn.l,wr.n;I'T
OrMK'J'LII'I'IYC01111111§SIO~'
"""'c>. lli•lqtl Ofliu
llftll ··;r.o 1\wnur, Sui~eil'ol
~••lllr.W.nlomo..., llliiU~·IQoll
T<l<piiO'"' 1'"'•1 "".....,'
r,.. c lml... jlll61ll~ 11
I 011, 1>061 »11-611•>

Case 2:06-cv-00761-RSM Document 1-1 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 6 of 6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

The Commission requests a jury trial on all qut.:stions of fact raised by its complaint.

3

DATED this 31st day of_May, 2006.

4 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney

JAMES L. LEF.
Deputy General Counsel

' JOHN STANLEY Acting Supervisory Trial Attornt:y
7
WESLEYKATAHIRA K Senior Trial Attorney
? MOLLY KUCUK
Trial Attorney
111

GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS A~sociate General Counsel

))
BY: Is! William R. Tamayo 12 ~!QUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
13 San Francisco District Office
350 The Embarcadero, Ste. 500
" San Francisco, California 941 05~1260
ll Telephone (415) 625-5645 Facsimile (415) 625-5657

Office of the General Cou11sel IMOl '~L"StrcctNW Washington, D.C. 20507

16
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17

18

19

20

ll

22

23

24

COMPI.AINT- Page 6of6

EQUALEMrWYMI:I'il"

DJ'I'DJinl};In'COII'II'Il~UN

Snnlo Dillri<t0fi"K•

""""'n 'l()9RrilA•.,,._Suoll'400

l'itiiiiO, W..

~iiOH~I

1~1~1'-' (m.:.) Zl:Q-~IIID
""'"j" , ..........., (m.:.)

Tf)&. (llli,llZII-I.Ul

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9

10

JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGAN MORRIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

11 situated,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF OREGON, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17

CASE NO. C06-0045RSM ORDER ON STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
CASE NO. C06-761MAT ORDER ON STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

18 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., LES SCHWAB
22 WAREHOUSE CENTER, INC.,

23

24

25

All parties to the above captioned cases have stipulated to consolidation of the cases.

26 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED;

27

(1) Cause Nos. C06–0045RSM and C06-761MAT are hereby consolidated as one case under

28 Cause No. C06-0045RSM. All future documents shall be filed in Cause No. C06-0045RSM only.

ORDER ON STIPULATION - 1

1

(2) The deadline for filing the Joint Status Report in C06-761MAT is hereby VACATED. A new

2 Order directing the filing of a Joint status report shall be entered by the Court following the filing of an

3 answer to the individual plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.

4

(3) The Clerk shall post a copy of this Order in both C06-0045RSM and C06-761MAT, and shall

5 enter a notation on the docket in C06-761MAT that the case has been consolidated into C06-0045RSM.

6

(4) Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, plaintiff in C06-0045MAT, shall

7 enter notices of appearance in this matter so that the docket sheet correctly reflects all counsel in the

8 case.

9

DATED this 14th Day of July 2006.

10

11

A

12

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER ON STIPULATION - 2

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 1 of 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CASE NO. 2:06-cv-0045-RSM
11 COMMISSION

12

Plaintiff,

CONSENT DECREE

13

14

v.

15

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

18

I. INTRODUCTION

19

1. This action originated with discrimination charges brought by Magen Morris and

20 Jennifer Strange, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on
21 October 20, 2004. The charging parties alleged that Les Schwab: (a) failed to train and promote 22
them to management positions; (b) retaliated against and constructively discharged them; and (c)
23
failed to hire females for Sales & Service positions. The charging parties alleged that these acts
24 25 violated Title VII.

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 1

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 2 of 16

1

2. Based on these charges, the Commission filed this lawsuit on May 31, 2006, in

2 the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges

3 that Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of California, Inc., Les
4
Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana, Inc., Les Schwab Tire
5
Centers of Oregon, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of
6 7 Nevada, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington,
8 Inc., and Les Schwab Warehouse, Inc. (the “Les Schwab Companies” or “Les Schwab”) failed to

9 hire females for Sales & Service positions, failed to train females, and failed to promote females

10 to management positions. Les Schwab denied the EEOC’s claims. Subsequently, the Court

11 dismissed the training and promotion claims asserted in the charges and in the complaint. The
12
remaining individual claims of Ms. Morris and Ms. Strange were resolved in a separate
13
proceeding; thus the two charging parties are no longer part of the litigation to be resolved by
14
15 this Consent Decree ("Decree" herein).

16

3. The EEOC and Les Schwab want to conclude all claims arising out of the above

17 charges without expending further resources in contested litigation and therefore agree to entry

18 by the Court of this Decree. This Decree resolves all claims for attorneys fees and costs by all
19 parties.
20
II. NONADMISSION OF LIABILITY
21
4. This Decree is not an admission of wrongdoing or an adjudication or finding on
22
the merits of the case. Les Schwab expressly denies any wrongdoing or violation of Title VII.
23

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 2

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 3 of 16

1

III. SETTLEMENT SCOPE

2

5. This Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of the EEOC’s complaint.

3 This Decree does not affect the EEOC’s right to process, in accordance with standard

4
Commission procedures, other charges, if any, filed by individuals against the Les Schwab

5
Companies alleging violations of Title VII or any other statute enforced by the EEOC.
6

7

IV. CLASS MONETARY RELIEF

8

6. Class Settlement Fund Amount

9

Les Schwab shall pay the gross sum of $2,000,000.00 (“Class Fund”) in resolution of the

10 EEOC’s claims of hiring discrimination based on sex. This Class Fund amount shall constitute

11 the total payment by Les Schwab, including, without limitation, any and all costs of

12
administration, and any tax withholding such as FICA or FUTA. The EEOC shall reasonably
13
allocate a portion of the Class Fund to back pay consistent with federal law.
14

15

7. Class Fund Account

16

The Class Fund shall be deposited and maintained in a segregated account in the manner

17 described herein:

18

a. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date (which shall be the date of

19

entry of the Decree by the Court), Les Schwab shall establish and maintain a

20
segregated account, which shall be known as the “Class Fund Account.” Les
21

Schwab shall fund the Class Fund Account with the full amount of the Class Fund
22

23

within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date.

24

b. The Class Fund Account shall be an interest-bearing account in an established

25

financial institution selected by Les Schwab.

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 3

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 4 of 16

1

c. The Class Fund will be distributed by Les Schwab as determined by the

2

EEOC, including any distribution approved by the EEOC and necessary for

3

payment of administration costs. Under no circumstances may Les Schwab make

4
withdrawals or expenditures from the principal or interest of the Class Fund,

5
except as provided in this paragraph c and paragraph d below. Under no
6

7

circumstances shall commitments for payments from the principal or interest of

8

the Class Fund, for purposes allowed by this Consent Decree, exceed the amount

9

of funds available in the Class Fund.

10

d. Any remaining interest not necessary for the administration of the Class Fund

11

after all payments from the Fund have been made shall be retained by Les

12
Schwab. Any unclaimed principal of the Class Fund shall be donated to
13
Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Employment for Women.
14

15

8. Administration

16

The parties will agree on an Administrator to administer the class claim process. All fees

17 of the Administrator and any other expenses of the administration will be paid from the Class

18 Fund, except that Les Schwab will be responsible for issuing tax reporting forms at its own

19 expense. Pursuant to agreement between the EEOC and the Administrator, only reasonable fees
20
authorized by the EEOC can be incurred against the fund account.
21
9. Claim Process
22

23

a. Within thirty (30) days after entry of the Decree, Les Schwab will provide

24

EEOC with a Unicru spreadsheet identifying all females who submitted

25

applications for Sales & Service positions during the period from December 1,

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 4

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 5 of 16

1

2007 to entry of the Decree, and were not hired for a Sales & Service position.

2

The Unicru spreadsheet will include the following data fields for each such

3

applicant for periods prior to July 2009: name, address, social security number,

4
date of application, store number, whether interviewed, interview date, whether

5
offer extended, offer extended date, remove reason code value, removed date,
6

7

score, and ApplicationID. For periods from July 2009 through the Effective Date,

8

the Unicru spreadsheet will include the comparable data fields available in Unicru

9

Version 8. In addition, Les Schwab will produce phone number information for

10

applicants from Unicru if the added cost of doing so is de minimus. Les Schwab

11

will also provide an Infinium spreadsheet identifying all males hired into Sales &

12
Service positions during the period from December 1, 2007 to entry of the
13
Decree. The Infinium spreadsheet will include the following data for each such
14

15

hire: name, social security number, date of hire, and store number.

16

b. Based on the data provided under paragraph a above, and the dataset provided

17

previously in discovery, EEOC will determine potential class members.

18

c. Notice of settlement will only be sent to individuals EEOC has determined to

19

be potential class members under paragraph b. The description of the case as

20
reflected in the first paragraph of the attached draft Notice (Attachment A) will be
21

the description used in the final notice and in any other communications with
22

23

class members. The EEOC will provide a copy of the final Notice to Les Schwab.

24

The EEOC will make best efforts to ensure the Administrator will not reference

25

this case in its advertising or marketing materials. If any information about the

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 5

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 6 of 16

1

claims process is posted online, EEOC will determine the cost of ensuring that the

2

case name is not publicly available and afford Les Schwab the option to pay that

3

additional cost.

4
d. Determination of eligibility and claim share amount is entirely at the discretion

5
of the EEOC.
6

7

e. Les Schwab will issue final payment checks based on a single spreadsheet

8

identifying eligible class members and claim share amount.

9

V. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

10

10. The terms of this Decree are an injunction and operate as an injunction as to Les

11 Schwab, its officers, agents, managers, assistant managers and other supervisors and all human

12 resource professionals who provide advice and assistance to the foregoing individuals. In

13 ongoing recognition of its obligations under Title VII, Les Schwab agrees to continue the

14 policies and practices set forth below.

15 A. TRAINING AND AWARENESS PROGRAM

16

11. For the duration of this Decree Les Schwab will continue to provide training to all

17
employees in all company-owned stores as set forth below.
18
12. The objectives of this training are to: (1) convey Les Schwab’s commitment to
19

20 providing equal employment opportunities under laws against discrimination to all applicants

21 and employees, without regard to the gender of the applicant or employee; (2) provide

22 information and guidance to managers and employees on complying with laws against

23 discrimination, including Title VII; and (3) provide instruction on equal employment opportunity
24 issues, including preventing sex discrimination in hiring and promotion. 25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 6

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 7 of 16

1

13. It is the intention of Les Schwab to continue to provide EEO awareness to

2 management employees and its general workforce.

3

a. Les Schwab acknowledges that the effectiveness of its implementation of the

4
terms of this Decree is dependent on its workforce understanding that its efforts to

5
provide equal employment opportunities to all persons have the full commitment
6

7

of Les Schwab’s upper-management, including the Board of Directors, Chief

8

Executive Officer, and top Company officials. Within thirty (30) days after the

9

Court approves this Decree, Les Schwab will reaffirm to its workforce its

10

commitment to equal employment opportunity, to achieving a diverse workforce,

11

and to the furtherance of the Decree’s purpose. Within ten (10) days after Les

12
Schwab communicates its commitment to its workforce, it will certify to the
13
Commission its compliance with this paragraph, including the manner in which
14

15

the communication occurred.

16

b. During the term of this Decree, Les Schwab shall continue to provide training

17

on equal employment opportunity to all Regional Managers, Area Managers,

18

Store Managers, Assistant Managers, and other personnel, if any, who make store

19

hiring decisions, and human resources employees who support that process. The

20
training shall include the following topics: (1) federal, state and Company
21

prohibitions against unlawful discrimination, including sex discrimination, and
22

23

retaliation; (2) topics that will encourage equal employment in recruiting, hiring,

24

and promotion without engaging in sex discrimination and sex stereotyping; and

25

(3) Les Schwab’s efforts to recruit, hire, and maintain a diverse workforce. No

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 7

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 8 of 16

1

less than two (2) hours shall be devoted to training on these topics for each

2

participant within ninety (90) days following: (a) the date the Court approves this

3

Decree, and (b) on an annual basis thereafter throughout the term of the Decree.

4
c. Les Schwab shall continue to incorporate diversity training into its training for

5
executives, managers, and human resource associates.
6

7

14. Les Schwab understands that in order to carry out the objectives of this

8 Decree it must be recognized in local communities as an employer that supports and practices

9 equal employment opportunity. Therefore, within ninety (90) days after the Court approves this

10 Decree, Les Schwab will review its existing internal and external recruiting and hiring
11 documents (including materials on its external and internal websites) to confirm that they reflect 12
diverse images, including the presence of females in Sales & Service positions, and Les
13
Schwab's commitment to equal employment opportunity. Les Schwab will include the current
14 15 introductory statement (Attachment B) affixed to the book Les Schwab – Pride in Performance
16 whenever it is distributed by Les Schwab for any purpose. Within ten (10) days after Les

17 Schwab’s review has been completed, it will certify to the Commission its compliance with this

18 paragraph.
19 B. RECRUITMENT EFFORTS 20
15. Les Schwab will continue its recruitment efforts to increase the flow of female
21
applicants for Sales & Service positions. Those efforts will include the following:
22

23

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 8

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 9 of 16

1

a. In all recruiting and hiring materials, including but not limited to employment

2

applications, brochures, newspaper, radio, television, and internet advertisements,

3

and on its website, Les Schwab will state that “Les Schwab is an Equal

4
Opportunity Employer,” and will instruct store managers accordingly.

5
b. Les Schwab will continue to contact entities such as technical schools and
6

7

community colleges that may be sources of qualified female applicants for Sales

8

& Service positions. In connection with this, Les Schwab will select at least one

9

organization in each state in which it operates that promotes the employment of

10

women in non-traditional fields and will invite such organizations to link to Les

11

Schwab’s Web site.

12
c. Les Schwab will continue to participate in relevant job fairs in states where it
13
operates. One purpose of attending the job fairs will be to encourage qualified
14

15

females to apply for Sales & Service positions. Les Schwab will communicate its

16

commitment to developing and maintaining a diverse workforce and to its status

17

as an equal opportunity employer.

18 C. HIRING

19

16. During the term of this Decree, Les Schwab will make best efforts to hire females

20
into Sales & Service positions in proportion to their availability in the qualified applicant pool.
21

17. Les Schwab agrees to continue (1) the use of standard application materials for all
22

23 Sales & Service applicants through the electronic hiring process known as “Unicru”; and (2)

24 periodic review of all hiring procedures by Les Schwab’s Human Resources Department. Les

25 Schwab further agrees to notify and consult with the EEOC if the Unicru system is to be

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 9

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 10 of 16

1 discontinued or materially modified.

2 D. REPORTING, RECORD KEEPING AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW

3

18. Les Schwab shall maintain the following records for the term of this Decree or as

4
required by state or federal law, whichever is longer:

5
a. Applications for Sales & Service positions, including hard copies bearing
6

7

handwritten notes as well as electronic files maintained by third party vendor

8

(Kronos, Inc.);

9

b. A list of job fairs attended by Les Schwab pursuant to paragraph 15(c), and all

10

recruiting materials as referenced in Paragraph 15(a) above, including job

11

advertisements;

12
c. Copies of Les Schwab's hiring policies and procedures;
13
d. Copies of notifications to the organizations referenced in Paragraph 15(b);
14

15

e. Copies of centralized marketing campaign materials;

16

f. Documentation of employee training undertaken pursuant to paragraph 13b

17

including, but not limited to, materials used during the training and employee

18

participation records.

19

g. At any point during the term of this Decree, with reasonable notice, the

20
Commission may inspect and copy such documents and records required to be
21

maintained or created by the express terms of this Decree, or referred to by Les
22

23

Schwab to prepare its reports to the Commission.

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 10

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 11 of 16

1

19. Les Schwab will submit an initial report to the Commission concerning the

2 implementation of this Decree no later than 15 days after the expiration of the first six-month

3 period after the Court approves this Decree. Thereafter, reports will be submitted to the

4
Commission annually. Each report shall contain the information set forth below:

5
a. A list of the organizations Les Schwab has contacted pursuant to paragraph
6

7

15b, during the preceding reporting period.

8

b. A listing of all job fairs attended, in accordance with paragraph 15c including

9

the location held, during the preceding reporting period.

10

c. A spreadsheet containing all applicants for Sales & Service positions during

11

the preceding reporting period, including Unicru data fields for date of

12
application, sex, store number, and social security number.
13
d. A list of all hires into Sales & Service during the preceding reporting period,
14

15

including name, sex, date of hire, store number and social security number.

16

e. A listing of all training undertaken during the preceding reporting period in

17

accordance with paragraphs 11 and 13b, and a roster of participating employees.

18 E. NOTICE POSTING

19

20. For the pendency of the consent decree Les Schwab shall post a notice to

20
employees in each Les Schwab facility, attached hereto as Attachment C, informing them of this
21

settlement, its terms, and the company's commitment to compliance with federal laws relating to
22

23 equal employment opportunity.

24

VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

25

21. The Commission shall have the right to initiate an action pursuant to the Court’s

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 11

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 12 of 16

1 continuing jurisdiction for an unresolved dispute or for non-compliance with any provision of the

2 Decree, as follows:

3

a. If the EEOC believes that there is an issue to resolve, it shall promptly give

4
notice, in writing, to the company.

5
b. The parties shall promptly undertake efforts to resolve the areas of dispute or
6

7

alleged non-compliance.

8

c. If after 30 days the EEOC determines that efforts to resolve the matter have

9

failed, it shall notify Les Schwab in writing of such failure to resolve the matter

10

and may commence an action in the United States District Court to enforce the

11

terms of this Decree.

12
VII. DURATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE
13
22. This Consent Decree will become effective on the date approved and entered by
14

15 the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and it will remain in

16 effect for a period of four years. If the EEOC petitions the Court for violation of terms of the

17 Consent Decree, and the Court finds a violation, the Court may extend the duration of the

18 Decree.

19

VIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

20
23. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington shall
21

retain jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of the Consent Decree.
22

23

24 DATED this ___day of ____

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 12

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 13 of 16

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO
Regional Attorney
2

3

JOHN F. STANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney

4
DAMIEN A. LEE
5 Senior Trial Attorney

6 TERI L. HEALY 7 Senior Trial Attorney
8 MAY CHE
Trial Attorney
9

10 BY:

11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

12 Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400

13 Seattle, Washington 98104

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 13

JAMES L. LEE Acting General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel JEFFREY C. BANNON Assistant General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel 131 M Street NE Washington, D.C. 20507
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 14 of 16

1 BY:

Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth
2 JHollingsworth perkinscoie.com

3

Charles N. Eberhardt CEberhardt@perkinscoie.com

4 Chelsea D. Petersen
CDPetersen@perkinscoie.com

5 William B. Stafford

WStafford@perkinscoie.com
6 Perkins Coie LLP

7

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099

8 Telephone (206) 359-8000
Facsimile (206) 359-9000

9

10

11

BY: /s/ Kenneth J. Diamond Kenneth J. Diamond

12 WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1910

13 Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone (206) 676-8444
14 ken@winterbauer.com

15

16
Attorneys for Defendants
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 14

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 15 of 16

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO 

Regional Attorney 

2 


3 


JOHN F. STANLEY 
 Supervisory Trial Attorney 


4 

DAMIEN A. LEE
5 Senior Trial Attorney

6 TERI L. HEALY 7 
 Senior Trial Attorney
8 
 MAYCHE

Trial Attorney 

9 


10 BY: 


1 1




EQUAL EMPLOYM COMMISSION 


12 
 Seattle Field Office 

909 First Avenue, Suite 400 


13 Seattle, Washington 98104 


14 
 Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC 15

16 


17 


18 


19 


20

21 


22 


23 


24 


25

26 


27 
 CONSENT DECREE 
 28 
 Page 13


JAMES L. LEE Acting General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel JEFFREY C. BANNON Assistant General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel 
 l31 M Street NE 
 Washington, D.C. 20507 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98104-1061 

(206) 220-6885 


Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/2010 Page 16 of 16

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 450 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

6

7 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 8 COMMISSION

9

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-0045-RSM
ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE

10

v.

11 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF 12 WASHINGTON, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
The Court having considered the foregoing stipulated agreement of the parties, IT IS
15
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the foregoing Consent Decree be, and the same hereby is, approved as
16
the final decree of this Court in full settlement of this action. This lawsuit is hereby dismissed with
17
18 prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. The Court retains jurisdiction of this

19 matter for purposes of enforcing the Consent Decree approved herein.

20

DATED this 10th day of March, 2010.

21 22

A

23

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE
Page 1

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 1 of 8

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 14

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

15

AT SEATTLE

16

17 JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGEN MORRIS, on

18 behalf of themselves and all other similarly

NO. CV 06-0045RSM

19 situated,
20

LES SCHWAB DEFENDANTS' ANSWER

21

Plaintiffs,

TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

22

23 24

v.

25
26 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF 27 WASHINGTON, INC., LES SCHWAB 28 WAREHOUSE CENTER, INC.,

29

30

Defendants.

31

32

33

34

I. ANSWER

35

36

Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc., and Les Schwab Warehouse

37

38 Centers, Inc. ("Defendants") answer plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("Second Amended
39

40 41

Complaint") as follows:

42

1.1 The allegations in this paragraph are admitted.

43

44

1.2 The allegations in this paragraph are admitted.

45

46
47

1.3 The allegations in this paragraph are admitted.

48

49

50

51

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (NO. cv 06-0045RSM) - 1
30076-0021114937695_I.DOC

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 2 of 8

1

1.4 In response to the first sentence of this paragraph, Defendants admit that plaintiffs

2
3 purport to have asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second

4 5 sentence states a legal conclusion and is therefore denied.

6

7

1.5 Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence ofthis paragraph. The

8
9 second sentence states a legal conclusion and is therefore denied.

10

11

1.6 This paragraph states a legal conclusion and is therefore denied.

12

13

2.1 Defendants admit the allegations in this paragraph.

14

15

2.2 Defendants admit the allegations in this paragraph.

16

17

2.3 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

18

19

3.1 Defendants deny any discrimination against plaintiffs or any other women based

20
21 on gender, deny that any of the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

22
23 are or can be met, note that the Court has twice denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification,

24
25 and deny any other allegations in this paragraph.

26

27

3.2 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

28

29

3.3 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

30

31

3.4 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

32

33

3.5 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

34

35

3.6 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

36

37

4.1 Defendants admit that Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc., operates 103

38
39 tire stores under the name Les Schwab Tire Centers in Washington. Defendants deny that Les

40
41 Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc., operates (or operated, during the relevant time period) any tire

42
43 stores in any state. Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

44

45

4.2 Defendants admit that each of their retail tire stores has a Manager, that each store

46
47 typically has one or two Assistant Managers, and that each store also has employees in a position

48
49 entitled "Sales and Administration" and a position entitled "Sales and Service," among other

50
51 positions. Defendants further admit that the Sales and Administration position encompasses,

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (NO. cv 06-0045RSM) - 2
30076-0021/14937695 _I.DOC

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 3 of 8

among other things, office and clerical work, and the Sales and Service position encompasses tire

2 3 sales, tire installation, and related physical work on automobiles, trucks, farm machinery, and

4
5 other vehicles and equipment. Defendants deny that Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc.,

6
7 employs (or employed, during the relevant time period) any employees in any of these

8
9 enumerated positions. Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

10

11

4.3 Defendants admit that some entity known as Les Schwab Tire Centers has been in

12
13 business for more than 50 years and deny any remaining allegations in the first sentence of this

14
15 paragraph. Defendants deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

16

17

4.4 Defendants admit that the positions of Assistant Manager and Manager require

18
19 extensive prior experience in the Sales and Service position, and that all promotions to the

20
21 positions of Assistant Manager and Manager are made from within. Defendants deny any

22 23 remaining allegations of this paragraph.

24

25

4.5 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

26

27

4.6 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

28

29

5.1 As to the first sentence of this paragraph, Defendants admit that plaintiffs Strange

30
31 and Morris filed charges with the EEOC and state that the charges speak for themselves and are

32
33 the best evidence of their contents. Defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence.

34
35 The third sentence states a legal conclusion and is therefore denied.

36

37

6.1 Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1.1 through 5.1 of the

38
39 Second Amended Complaint.

40

41

6.2 This paragraph requires no response.

42

43

6.3 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

44

45

6.4 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

46

47

6.5 Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The

48
49 allegations in the second sentence require no response.

50

51

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (NO. CV 06-0045RSM) - 3
30076-0021114937695_I.DOC

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 4 of 8

1

7.1 Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1.1 through 6.5 of the

2 3 Second Amended Complaint.

4

5

7.2 This paragraph requires no response.

6

7

7.3 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

8

9

7.4 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

10

11

7.5 Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The

12
13 allegations in the second sentence require no response.

14

15

8.1 Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1.1 through 7.5 of the

16
17 Second Amended Complaint.

18

19

8.2 This paragraph require no response.

20

21

8.3 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

22

23

8.4 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph and note, specifically, that the

24
25 Court has twice denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and that the Court's Order on

26
27 Pending Motions (Dkt. #106, at 3, lines 17-19) contemplates that plaintiffs' Second Amended

28
29 Complaint would delete this "pattern and practice" claim.

30

31

8.5 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

32

33

8.6 This paragraph requires no response.

34

35

9.1 Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1.1 through 8.6 of the

36
37 Second Amended Complaint.

38

39

9.2 This paragraph requires no response.

40

41

9.3 Defendants admit that Jennifer Strange was formerly employed by a Les Schwab

42
43 Tire Center in the State of Washington. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this
44 45 paragraph.

46

47

9.4 Defendants admit that Magen Morris was formerly employed by one, or more,

48
49 Les Schwab Tire Center in the State of Washington. Defendants deny the remaining allegations

50
51 in this paragraph.

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (NO. CV 06-0045RSM) - 4
30076-0021114937695_l.DOC

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 5 of 8

1

9.5 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

2

3

9.6 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

4

5

9.7 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

6

7

9.8 Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

8

9

9.9 This paragraph requires no response.

10

11

10.1-8 Defendants deny that the class or classes alleged by Plaintiffs exist or that any of

12
13 the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are or can be satisfied.

14
15 Defendants further deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in these

16
17 paragraphs or to any other relief, and deny any remaining allegations in these paragraphs.

18

19

11.1 Any allegations not expressly admitted herein are denied.

20

21

II. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

22

23

By way of further answer, Defendants state the following defenses and affirmative

24

25 defenses:
26

27

1. Plaintiffs (hereinafter inclusive of all purported class members, except as

28

29 otherwise indicated) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

30

31

2. Plaintiffs lack standing to raise some or all of the claims of the purported class

32

33 members.
34

35

3. Plaintiffs' claims on behalf of the purported class are barred by plaintiffs' failure

36

37 to meet all four of the mandatory requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), or any of the

38

39 requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).
40

41

4. The claims alleged by the named plaintiffs are neither common nor typical of

42

43 those, if any, of the members of the purported class. 44

45

5. The named plaintiffs are inadequate representatives of the purported class.

46

47

6. The types of claims alleged by plaintiffs are matters in which individual questions

48

49 predominate and, accordingly, are not appropriate for class treatment.

50

51

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (NO. CV 06-0045RSM) - 5
30076-0021114937695_I.DOC

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 6 of 8

7. Plaintiffs have failed to identify a pattern or practice of discrimination against

2
3 plaintiffs.

4

5

8. The employment actions taken by Defendants with respect to the plaintiffs were

6
7 based upon legitimate, non-discriminatory factors other than gender.

8

9

9. Defendants deny that gender or any other impermissible factor played any role in

10
11 any employment decision made pursuant to any policy or procedure plaintiffs are or may be

12
13 challenging.

14

15

10. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent that the alleged unlawful actions of

16
17 Defendants' agents, employees and representatives, if they occurred, were not actions taken

18
19 within the course and scope oftheir employment.

20

21

II. Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages are barred under Washington law.

22

23

12. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with their duty to mitigate alleged losses (their

24

25 entitlement to recovery for which is expressly denied); alternatively, any claim for relief must be

26
27 set off and/or reduced by wages, compensation, pay and benefits, or other earnings or

28
29 remunerations, profits and benefits received by plaintiffs.

30

31

13. In the event that the Court or a jury should ever conclude that gender was a

32
33 motivating factor in any of the employment decisions challenged by plaintiffs, which Defendants

34
35 expressly deny, Defendants affirmatively aver that the same decisions would have been made

36
37 absent consideration of any impermissible factor(s).

38

39

14. Plaintiffs' claims, or some of them, are barred by applicable statutes of limitation.

40

41

15. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel and waiver.

42

43

16. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or part, by their failure to undertake

44
45 reasonable measures to avoid alleged consequences of the alleged actions about which they

46
47 complain.

48

49

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Second Amended Complaint, Defendants

50
51 respectfully request that:

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (NO. CV 06-0045RSM) - 6
30076-0021114937695 _1.DOC

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 7 of 8

1. The Second Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;

2

3

2. Defendants be awarded the costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees they incur

4

5 herein;

6

7

3. Defendants be granted permission to amend the Answer to conform with the

8
9 proof; and

10

11

4. Defendants be granted such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

12

l3

DATED this 3rd day of December 2008.

14

15

sl Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth

16

Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth, WSBA #11853

17

Charles N. Eberhardt, WSBA #18019

18 19

Perkins Coie LLP

20

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

21

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

22

Telephone: 206-359-8000

23

Fax: 206-359-9000

24

E-mail: JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com

25

26

Kenneth J. Diamond, WSBA #27009

27

28 29

Winterbauer & Diamond, P.L.L.C. 1200 - 5th Avenue, Suite 1910

30

Seattle, WA 98101

31

Telephone: (206) 676-8440

32

Fax: (206) 676-8441

33

Email: Ken@winterbauer.com

34

35

36

Attorneys for Defendants

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (NO. CV 06-0045RSM) - 7
30076-0021114937695_1.DOC

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 8 of 8

1

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

3

4

5

On December 3rd, 2008, I caused to be served upon counsel of record, at the address

6

7 stated below, via the method of service indicated, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

8

9 document:

10

11

Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint

12

13 Mr. John F. Stanley

14 15

Mr. Damien A. Lee

16 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

17 Seattle District Office

18 Federal Office Building, Suite 400

19 909 First Avenue

l

Via hand delivery Via U.S. Mail, 1st Class, Postage Prepaid Via Overnight Delivery Via Facsimile Via E-filing

20 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
21

22 Attorneys for PlaintiffEEOC
23
24 Mr. Warren E. Martin

25 Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell,

26 Malanca, Peterson & Daheim LLP

27 Suite 2100, One Union Square

28 600 University Street

29 30

Seattle, WA 98101

31
32 Attorney for Plaintiffs Strange & Morris

Via hand delivery

Via U.S. Mail, 1st Class,

Postage Prepaid

Via Overnight Delivery

Via Facsimile

l

Via E-filing

33

34

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the

35

36 foregoing is true and correct.

37

38

DATED at Seattle, Washington, December 3rd, 2008.

39

40

s/Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth

41

State Bar Number: 11853

42

Attorney for Defendants

43 44

Perkins Coie LLP

45

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

46

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

47

Telephone: (206) 359-8000

48

Fax: (206) 359-9000

49

E-mail: JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com

50

51

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (NO. CV 06-0045RSM) - 1
30076-0021114937695 _1.DOC

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 98 Filed 11/06/08 Page 1 of 7

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

IS

AT SEATTLE

16

17

18 JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGEN

19 MORRIS,

20 on behalf of themselves and all other

21 similarly situated,

22

23

Plaintiffs,

No. C06-0045-RSM
DEFENDANT LES SCHWAB WAREHOUSE CENTER INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

24

25

v.

26

27 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF

28 OREGON, INC., et aI.,

79

30

Defendants.

NOTE FOR MOTION CALENDAR: Friday, November 28, 2008

31

32 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

33 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

34

35

Plaintiff,

36

37

v.

38

39 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF

40 WASHINGTON, INC., et aI.,
41

42

Defendants.

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

DEFENDANT WAREHOUSE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
30076-00211LEGALl490 1648.1

Perkins Coie UP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 9810 1-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 98 Filed 11/06/08 Page 2 of 7

1

2

I. INTRODUCTION

3

4

5

Defendant Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc. ("Warehouse") moves pursuant to

6
7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 to be dismissed as a defendant in this action. As explained

8
9 below, Warehouse does not own or operate any of the Les Schwab Tire Centers ("retail tire

10
11 stores") and does not control or employ any of the persons who work in those retail tire stores

J2 13 and who are the subject of this lawsuit. Further, there is no parent-subsidiary relationship

14
15 between Warehouse and the Les Schwab companies that do own and operate those retail tire

16
17 stores and employ and control the workers in the retail tire stores. As such, Warehouse cannot

18
19 be subject to liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") or the

20
21 Washington Law Against Discrimination ("WLAD"), and should be dismissed from this action.

22

23

II. FACTS

24

25

1. In their First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 20), Jennifer Strange and Magen Morris

26

27 named Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc., Les
28

29 . 30

Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. and Warehouse as defendants. 1 Strange and Morris

31
32 acknowledge that they were fonnerly employed in retail tire stores by Les Schwab Tire Centers

33

34 of Washington, Inc. Id. ~~ 2.1-2.2.
35

36 37

2. In its initial Complaint, the EEOC named Les Schwab Tire Centers of

38
39 Washington, Inc. and Warehouse as defendants. Dkt. 24. In its First Amended Complaint, the

40

41 EEOC added Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of California,

42

43
44

Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana, Inc., Les

45

46
47

I In September 2008, Strange and Morris filed a Motion to Amend their First Amended Complaint to drop Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon, Inc. and Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland, Inc. from their

48

Complaint. Dkt. 77. Defendants have not opposed and anticipate that the Court will grant Strange and

49

Morris' motion as to this request. Therefore, although Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon, Inc., also is

50

not a proper defendant because it does not own or operate any retail tire stores or employ persons who

51

work in those stores, it has not joined in this motion.

DEFENDANT WAREHOUSE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C06-0045-RSM) - 1
30076'(}021ILEGAL 1490 1648.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 9810 I-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 98 Filed 11/06/08 Page 3 of 7

1 Schwab Tire Centers of Portland, Inc. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada, Inc., and Les Schwab

2

3 Tire Centers of Utah, Inc. as defendants. Dkt. 36. 4

5 6

3. In this lawsuit, the EEOC alleges that the Les Schwab defendants have engaged in

7
8 a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination in violation of Title VII against women with

9

10 respect to hiring and promotion. Specifically, the EEOC claims that, since January 2004, the Les 11

12 Schwab defendants have discriminated against women with respect to (a) hiring into Sales &
13

14
15 Service jobs and (b) promotion from Sales & Service to Assistant Manager, at over 300 retail tire

16

17 stores in seven states. Strange and Morris, on the other hand, allege that they were retaliated

18

19 against in violation of Title VII and the WLAD in connection with their employment?
20

21
22 Id. §§ VI-VII, X.

23

24

4. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of

25

26 California, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho, Inc.,
27

28 29

Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland, Inc., Les

30
31 Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada, Inc., and Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah, Inc. (collectively,

32

33 the "Tire Center companies") own and operate the retail tire stores and employ the workers in the

34

35 retail tire stores in their respective states. For example, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington,
36

37
38 Inc., owns and operates the retail tire stores in Washington and employs the persons who work in

39

40 the retail tire stores in Washington. Declaration of Corey Parks ("Parks Decl."), at ~2.

41

42

5. Warehouse has its own by-laws and Articles of Incorporation, each of the Tire

43

44 45 Center companies has its own by-laws and Articles of Incorporation, and there is no parent-

46
47 subsidiary relationship between Warehouse and any of the Tire Center companies. ld. ~3. The

48

49

2 Strange and Morris originally filed suit as purported class representatives ofa class of women subject to a

50

pattern-or-practice of discrimination in promotions, a claim rendered defunct by the Court's denial of class

51

certification. See Dkt. 71, 72.

DEFENDANT WAREHOUSE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C06-0045-RSM) - 2
30076·00211LEGAL 1490 1648.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 98 Filed 11/06/08 Page 4 of 7

I Tire Center companies do not act as an agent of Warehouse nor does Warehouse act as an agent

2

3 of any of the Tire Center companies. Id. ~4.
4

5 6

6. Warehouse provides certain financial and accounting services for the Tire Center

7
8 companies for a fee as provided in Managerial and Administrative Services Agreements between

9

10 Warehouse and each Tire Center company. Id. As set forth in those Agreements, each Tire

II

12 Center company has the sole authority and right to manage its business activities, and is
13

14
15 responsible for the day-to-day management, operation, and staffing of its retail tire centers. Id.

16

17 Warehouse has no control or responsibility for the day-to-day management, operation or staffing·

18

19 of the retail tire centers. Id.
20

21
22

7. In its Requests for Production of Documents in this lawsuit, the EEOC asked for

23
24 tax returns for all of the Les Schwab corporations it has named as defendants in its lawsuit.

25

26 Declaration of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth, at ~2. Defendants agreed to provide returns for the Tire 27

28 29

Center companies that are the employers of workers in the retail tire stores, but not for corporate .

30
31 entities (Le., Warehouse) that have no retail tire store employees, as there is no parent-subsidiary

32

33 relationship between these entities. Id. Defendants have offered (and remain willing) to provide

34

35 a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to confirm the identity of the employer corporations and the lack of a
36

37
38 parent-subsidiary relationship between them and Warehouse. Id. ~3.

39

40

8. Rather than accept this offer, however, the EEOC instead filed a Motion to

41

42 Compel production of tax records from Warehouse. Id.; Dkt. 94. Now, in light of this,
43

44 45

Warehouse is filing this motion to be removed from the case.

46

47

48

49

50

51

DEFENDANT WAREHOUSE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C06-0045-RSM) - 3
30076·00211LEGALl490 1648.1

Perkins Coie LLP 120 I Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 98 Filed 11/06/08 Page 5 of 7

1

III. ARGUMENT

2
3 A. Summary Judgment Standard

4

5

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment "shall be rendered

6

7 forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
8

9 10

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

II
12 that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex

13

14 Com. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317,320-23 (1986). That is the situation here, as Warehouse is not a

15

16 proper party in this consolidated action.
17

18

19 B. The Warehouse Corporation Does Not Employ The People Who Work In The Les

20

Schwab Retail Tire Stores And Is Not A Proper Defendant

21

22

To hold Warehouse liable under Title VII, the EEOC must show that Warehouse is an

23

24 25

"employer" within the meaning of that statute. Herman v. United Broth. of Carpenters and

26
27 Joiners of America, Local Union No. 971,60 F.3d 1375, 1383 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Childs v.

28

29 Local 18, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, 719 F.2d 1379, 1383 (9th Cir. 1983) (abrogated on

30

31 other grounds by Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S; 500 (2006). Likewise, to hold Warehouse
32

33
34 liable under the WLAD, Strange and Morris must show that Warehouse is their "employer"

35

36 within the meaning of that statute. See RCW 49.60.040(3); Jenkins v. Palmer, 116 Wn. App.

37

38 671, 675, 66 P.3d 1119 (2003); Patten v. Ackerman, 68 Wn. App. 831, 834-35, 846 P.2d 567
39

40
41 (1993). They cannot do so. Strange, Morris, and any class member on whose behalf the EEOC

42

43 seeks relief were not employed by (or, in the case of applicants, has not applied for or been

44

45 denied employment with or by) Warehouse. Rather, they were employed by-or applied for and
46

47
48

were denied employment with or by-the Tire Center companies for each respective state. Thus,

49
50 for example, Washington store employees like Strange and Morris were employed by Les

51

DEFENDANT WAREHOUSE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C06-0045-RSM) - 4
J0076·00211LEGALl490 1648.1

Perkins Coie LLP 120) Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 9810) -3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 . Fax: 206.359.9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 98 Filed 11/06/08 Page 6 of 7

I Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. and persons who submitted unsuccessful applications

2

3 to Washington stores applied for employment with Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc.
4

5 6

Again, there is no parent-subsidiary relationship between Warehouse and this or any other Tire

7
8 Center companies. Parks Decl. at ~3.

9

10

II

IV. CONCLUSION

12

13

14

For the foregoing reasons, Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc., respectfully requests that

15
16 it be dismissed with prejudice as a party to this law~uit.

17

18

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of November, 2008

19

20

21

sl Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth. WSBA #11853

22

Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth, WSBA #11853

23

Charles N. Eberhardt, WSBA #18019

24

Perkins Coie LLP

25

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

26

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

27

Telephone: 206-359-8000

28

Fax: 206-359-9000

29

E-mail: JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com

30

31

Kenneth J. Diamond. WSBA #27009

32

Winterbauer & Diamond, P.L.L.C.

33

1200 - 5th Avenue, Suite 1910

34

Seattle, WA 98101

35

Telephone: (206) 676-8440

36

Fax: (206) 676-8441

37

Email: Ken@winterbauer.com

38

39

Attorneys for Defendants

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

DEFENDANT WAREHOUSE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. C06-0045-RSM) - 5
30076'()0211LEQAL 14901648.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 98 Filed 11/06/08 Page 7 of 7

I

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

3

The undersigned hereby certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of

4 5 Washington that, on November 6,2008, he caused to be served on the persons listed below in the

6
7 manner shown:

8

9

DEFENDANT WAREHOUSE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

10

JUDGMENT

11

12 13

o United States Mail, First Class

14 15

o By Messenger

16 17

o By Facsimile

18

19

~ ByeFiling

20

21
22

Mr. Warren E. Martin

Mr. John F. Stanley

23

Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell,

Mr. Damien A. Lee

24

Malanca, Peterson & Daheim LLP

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

25

Suite 2100, One Union Square

Commission

26

600 University Street

Seattle District Office

27

Seattle, WA 98101

Federal Office Building, Suite 400

28

909 First Avenue

29 30

Attorneyfor Plaintiffs Strange &

Seattle, WA 98104-1061

31

Morris

Attorneys for PlaintiffEEOC

32 33

Dated at Seattle, Washington, this 6th day of November, 2008.

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

s/Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth, WSBA # 11853

41

State Bar Number: 11853

42

Attorneys for Defendants

43
44
45

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

46

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

47

Telephone: (206) 359-8000

48

Fax: (206) 359-9000

49

E-mail: JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com

50

51

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (NO. C06-0045-RSM) - I
30076-(}0211LEGAL 1490 1648.1

Perkins Coie llP 120 I Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 1 of 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10 JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGAN MORRIS, on

11

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF OREGON, 15 INC., et al.,

16

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-045RSM
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

17 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
18 COMMISSION,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,
22
Defendants. 23

24

This matter is now before the Court for consideration of defendant Les Schwab Warehouse

25 Center’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. # 108). The Court has fully considered the motion,

26 plaintiffs’ opposition, and the record in this matter, as well as relevant case law, and deems oral argument

27 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL
28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 2 of 12

1 unnecessary. For the reasons set forth below, the motion shall be granted in part and denied in part.

2

BACKGROUND

3

Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange and Magen Morris are former employees of defendant Les Schwab Tire

4 Centers of Washington, Inc. They filed this employment discrimination complaint based on Washington

5 state and federal law, alleging that their employer discriminated against them on the basis of their gender

6 by failing to promote them to managerial positions, and by retaliating against them for filing an

7 employment discrimination complaint. Their second amended complaint names Les Schwab Warehouse

8 Center, Inc. (“Warehouse Center” or “Warehouse”), an Oregon corporation, as an additional defendant.

9 With respect to this defendant, the individual plaintiffs allege:

10

2.3 The defendants collectively operate under the name “Les Schwab Tire Centers.” Les

Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc. has, for equal employment reporting purposes, identified

11

itself as the parent corporation for all Les Schwab Tire Center operations. For the purpose

of this action, the defendants together constitute a single integrated enterprise. The principal

12

place of business of all Les Schwab Tire Center operations is Prineville, Oregon.

13 Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. # 113, p. 2.

14

After the individual plaintiffs filed this action, the EEOC brought a separate action on behalf of

15 Ms. Strange and Ms. Morris, and “similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by

16 [defendants’] practices.” Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of

17 Washington, Inc., et al., C06-761RSM. The action named as defendants the Les Schwab Tire Centers of

18 Washington, Inc., and Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc. Id., Dkt. # 1. The two cases were

19 consolidated into one action, and the EEOC filed an amended complaint.1 With respect to defendant

20 Warehouse Center, plaintiff EEOC alleges in the amended complaint:

21

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and Title I of

the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct the unlawful employment practices and to provide

22

appropriate relief to Magen Morris, Jennifer Strange and similar situated individuals who

were adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

23

(“the EEOC” or “the Commission”) alleges that defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of

Washington, Inc.[,] Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise,

24

Inc., . . . (collectively referred to herein as “Les Schwab” or “defendants”) violated Title VII

by discriminating against Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange and similarly situated individuals on the

25

26

1 The EEOC First Amended Complaint also names additional Les Schwab Tire Centers in other

states than Washington, but those are not put at issue in this motion. Dkt. # 36.

27

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL

28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 3 of 12

1

basis of sex when defendants failed to provide training opportunities to them and when it

failed to promote them to management positions on the basis of sex. The EEOC also alleges

2

that Les Schwab violated Title VII when it failed to hire female applicants for positions in the

sale/service departments of Les Schwab Tire Center facilities on the basis of sex.

3

EEOC First Amended complaint, Dkt. # 36, p. 2.

4

Defendant Warehouse Center has moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that it should

5

not be a defendant in this action because both the individual defendants worked only for Les Schwab Tire

6

Centers of Washington, Inc. Warehouse Center, located in Prineville, Oregon, is a warehouse and

7

distribution center for the network of Les Schwab retail tire sales centers, of which Les Schwab Tire

8

Center of Washington, Inc., is one. Warehouse Center asserts that it was not plaintiffs’ employer and

9

thus not amenable to suit by them under either state or federal law. Warehouse asserts that it is a

10

separate corporation from each of the individual state’s Tire Centers, with its own by-laws and Articles of

11

Incorporation. According to Warehouse, there is no parent-subsidiary relationship between the

12

Warehouse Center and any of the Tire Centers, nor does the Warehouse Center act as an agent for the

13

Tire Centers. Warehouse does provide financial and accounting services for the Tire Centers on a fee

14

basis, but the various Tire Centers have the sole authority to manage their own business activities.

15

Defendant Warehouse’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. # 98, ¶¶ 5-6. The individual

16

plaintiffs and the EEOC have opposed the motion, contending that the relationship between the Tire

17

Centers and the Warehouse Center is sufficient to allow imposition of liability upon the Warehouse

18

Center under both state and federal law.

19

ANALYSIS

20

I. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

21

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

22

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

23

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

24

An issue is “genuine” if “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” and a fact is

25

material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

26

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving

27

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL 28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 4 of 12

1 party. Id. “[S]ummary judgment should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence

2 from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor.” Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co.,

3 68 F. 3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). It should also be granted where there is a “complete failure of

4 proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

5 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving

6 party’s position is not sufficient” to prevent summary judgment. Triton Energy Corp., 68 F. 3d at 1221.

7

II. Liability for Discrimination under Title VII

8

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to

9 his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color,

10 religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Title VII only covers employers with fifteen or

11 more employees. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The courts have developed and applied a four-part “single

12 employer” or “integrated enterprise” test to determine whether two related companies may be considered

13 one employer for the purposes of counting employees and thus determining statutory coverage under

14 Title VII. Under the four-part test, multiple businesses may be treated as a single employer for the

15 purpose of Title VII coverage if they had “(1) integrated operations, (2) common management, (3)

16 centralized control of labor relations, and (4) common ownership or financial control.” Morgan v.

17 Safeway Stores, Inc., 884 F. 2d 1211, 1213 (9th Cir. 1989).

18

However, this four-part test for determining whether two entities may constitute a “single

19 employer” or “integrated enterprise” is not used to determine joint liability; instead it “determines

20 whether a defendant can meet the statutory criteria of an ‘employer’ for Title VII applicability.”

21 Anderson v. Pacific Maritime Association, 336 F. 3d 924, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, the

22 “coverage” cases must be distinguished from the “liability” cases, in which a court analyzes whether two

23 or more corporations are related in such a way that one may be subjected to the Title VII liability of the

24 other as either a joint or indirect employer. See, EEOC v. Pacific Maritime Association, 351 F. 3d 1270,

25

26

27 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL
28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 5 of 12

1 1272-73 (9th Cir. 2003).2

2

“Liability as an indirect employer requires that the employer have ‘some peculiar control over the

3 employee’s relationship with the direct employer’ and that the indirect employer engaged in

4 ‘discriminatory interference.’” Id. at 1274, quoting Anderson, 336 F. 3d at 932. Plaintiffs have alleged

5 neither “peculiar control” not “discriminatory interference” on the part of Warehouse, so it is not an

6 indirect employer. However, where the indirect employer test is not met, an employer may still be subject

7 to liability as a joint employer where both entities exert some control over the terms and conditions of

8 employment and the employee. Id. at 1275.

9

The Ninth Circuit’s “joint employer” test for liability was originally set forth in a case under the

10 Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). See, Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F. 2d

11 1465 (9th Cir. 1983), (disapproved of on other grounds in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit

12 Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)). Under this test, the district court should look to the “economic reality”

13 behind the relationship between the two employers, considering whether the alleged joint employer (1)

14 had the power to hire and fire the employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or

15 conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained

16 employment records. Id. at 1470. The Bonnette economic reality test for joint employer liability was

17 applied to Title VII actions in EEOC v. Pacific Maritime Association, 351 F. 3d at 1275. The appellate

18 court noted that the “joint employer” doctrine “recognizes that the business entities involved are in fact

19 separate but that they share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of

20 employment.” Rubino v. Acme Building Maintenance, 2008 WL 5245219 at *3, quoting Pacific

21 Maritime Association, 351 F. 3d at 1276-77. As noted previously by a court of this district, “[t]he Ninth

22 Circuit has stated that the ‘sine qua non’ of determining whether the entity is a joint employer is whether

23 2The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to re-hear this case en banc, but no en banc decision
24 was ever issued. EEOC v. Pacific Maritime Association, 367 F. 3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2004). The opinion of the three-judge panel has subsequently been cited by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the
25 district courts of this circuit for the “joint employer” analysis. See, e.g., Morsovillo v. Clark County, 136 Fed. Appx 17 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished disposition); Rubino v. Acme Building Maintenance, 2008
26 WL 5245219 at *3 (N.D. Ca. 2008); Garcia v. Courtest Ford, Inc., 2007 WL 1192681 at *5 (W.D.Wash. 2007).
27
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL 28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 6 of 12

1 the entity has ‘the right to hire, supervise and fire employees.’” Garcia v. Courtesy Ford, Inc., 2008 WL

2 1192681 at *6.

3

In moving for summary judgment, Warehouse asserts that it

4

does not employ or control the hiring, training, promotion, firing, wages, hours, or working

conditions of the employees in the retail tire stores. Rather, the Tire Center companies have

5

power and authority over such issues as to the retail tire stores each owns and operates.

Warehouse has its own by-laws and Articles of Incorporation, each Tire Center company has

6

its own by-laws and Articles of Incorporation, and there is no parent-subsidiary relationship

between Warehouse and any Tire Center company.

7

8 Declaration of Corey Parks, Dkt. # 100, ¶ 3. Warehouse does provide “certain financial and accounting

9 services for the Tire Center companies for a fee as provided in Managerial and Administrative Services

10 Agreements between Warehouse and each Tire Center company.” Id., ¶ 4. These Agreements specify

11 that Warehouse “has no control or responsibility for the day-to-day management, operation or staffing of

12 the retail tire centers.” Id., citing Agreement, Dkt. # 100, Exhibit 1, ¶ 3.2.

13

In their opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the individual plaintiffs assert that

14

Warehouse is directly involved with the claims of the individual plaintiffs. The Third Man

Training Program, a necessary prerequisite for promotion to an Assistant Manager position,

15

is conducted in Warehouse facilities in Prineville, Oregon. The training materials and notification

of who is selected also comes from Human Resources, a Warehouse function managed in

16

Prineville. Many of the persons who select Assistant Managers are Warehouse employees. When

each plaintiff requested a medical leave of absence due to retaliatory

17

conduct, that request was forwarded to Human Resources (a Warehouse function) and a

Warehouse employee responded to plaintiffs’ requests.

18

Plaintiffs’ Response, Dkt. # 114, pp. 3-4. While the fact that “many of the persons who select Assistant

19

Managers are Warehouse employees” could be evidence demonstrating that Warehouse does have some

20

authority to supervise Tire Center employees, plaintiffs have submitted no evidence to support this

21

conclusory allegation—their motion is unsupported by affidavits or declarations, and nowhere in this

22

motion have they pointed to actual evidence in the record to support this or their other allegations. The

23

sole exhibit attached to the individual defendants’ motion is a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, asking Les

24

Schwab Tire Centers to designate and produce an employee, agent, or manager with knowledge of the

25

eligibility criteria and selection process for tire center assistant managers. Dkt. # 114, Exhibit A.

26

Plaintiffs contend that this deposition notice is significant, because the person designated as the Tire

27

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL 28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 7 of 12

1 Centers’ Rule 30(b)(6) representative was Jodie Hueske, director of the human resource department of

2 Warehouse. However, this fact does not, without more, demonstrate that Warehouse has the right to

3 hire, supervise, or fire the Tire Center employees. The individual plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations on this

4 point are insufficient to withstand summary judgment on the Title VII claim.

5

The EEOC opposition to the summary judgment motion includes selected pages from the

6 deposition of Jodie Hueske, highlighted to indicate those portions that the EEOC believes are most

7 significant to the question of Warehouse’s status with respect to Tire Center employees Among these

8 are the following:

9

Q. Who are you currently employed by?

10

A. Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc.

11

. . . .

12

Q. What do you do as director of the human resources department?

13

A. I oversee all human resource-related activities that support the corporate office, some

o f our ancillary businesses, as well as provide assistance to the tire center corporations.

14

. . . .

15

Q. Are there separate human resource functions within the separate tire corporation?

16

A. Each manager of every tire center provides and conducts a variety of what one would

17

co nsider human resource-related activities, such as hiring decisions, performance

e valuation, discipline and termination, dealing with payroll and things of that nature.

18

But on a sort of more global basis, the warehouse, through an administrative arrangement

with the tire centers, provides assistance and support to the tire centers and to the

19

management of the tire centers on various HR-related issues as well as we administer

employee benefits and compensation programs.

20

. . . .

21

Q. Is there a document—strike that. Was there a document in the 2003, ‘4, ‘5 time frame

22

that described the process by which someone applied for an assistant manager position?

23

A. In order to really talk about how one applies for an assistant manager position, there are

several steps that a sales and service employee has to go through in order to be eligible

24

to apply should there be an opening.

25

Q. I didn’t ask about the process yet. I just want to know whether there was a document that

described it during that time frame?

26

. . . .

27

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL 28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 8 of 12

1

A. During that time frame, again, there was The Ron White Book that would explain part

of this process. There was also a list that was available on the intranet that would list

2

openings for assistant manager positions, as well as any time there was an opening, the

point of sale system would print out a notice to the store as to any openings within the

3

assistant manager position so that anybody who was interested at any time would be able

to see either on the intranet or through a document that would be printed within each store

4

openings for the assistant manager position.

5

. . . .

6

Q. The intranet in 2004 was maintained in Prineville?

7

A. The intranet was maintained by the IS department in Prineville.

8

Q. And the store training department was located in Prineville?

9

A. The store training department, the employees, yes, were located in Prineville.

10

Q. And the intranet was available to all of the stores—employees in the stores throughout

the company?

11

A. Yes.

12

. . . .

13

Q. Tell me about the training. Who conducts it?

14

A. Once a year all the assistant managers come to Prineville for training. That happens in

15

J une of every year. Once a year all the managers come to Prineville for training. That

happens in September of every year. It’s typically a two-day training, and it covers a

16

variety of issues from advertising, marketing, new policies, inventory, human resources,

legal, work comp. It’s a variety of issues that get covered.

17

. . . .

18

Q. I interrupted you when you were telling me the various things that you’ve done to recruit

19

women in the sales and service position.

20

A. Well, in addition to the training that we have talked about, as well as the advertising, we

partner with a company called Unicru, which was purchased by Kronos, which is a

21

company that allows us to electronically receive applications and do it over the Internet,

either through our website or through any other portal, so that we can—instead of just

22

t aking applications in our stores, we have the ability to take applications from anybody,

anywhere, any time, anyplace.

23

Deposition of Jodie Hueske, Dkt. # 116, Exhibit B, pp. 4, 6-7, 16-21.

24

In addition to this deposition, the EEOC has presented various corporate documents, indicating

25

the extent of the relationship between the Warehouse and the various Tire Centers. For example, John

26

Britton and Corey Parks are listed on the various states’ Secretary of State corporate registration

27

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL 28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 8

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 9 of 12

1 websites as President and Secretary, respectively, of the Warehouse and of the Tire Centers incorporated

2 in Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. Declaration of Lisa Cox, Dkt. # 116, Exhibit D. Further, the

3 Warehouse address in Prineville (646 NW Madras Highway, and/or PO Box 667, Prineville) is listed as

4 the business address for the Tire Centers incorporated in California, Idaho and Utah. Id.

5 Announcements regarding employee benefits and group health insurance are initiated from the Warehouse

6 and bear the name of the Warehouse and each Tire Center. Id., Exhibit G. Finally, EEOC has provided

7 copies of the “Managerial and Administrative Services Agreement” between the Warehouse and the

8 Washington Tire Center, together with the amended fee agreement providing that a percentage of gross

9 sales shall be paid to the Warehouse by the Tire Center for the covered services. Id., Exhibit H, I. The

10 Managerial and Administrative Services Agreement provides that Warehouse employees may serve as

11 officers and directors of the Tire Center corporation; that Warehouse may advise the Tire Centers

12 regarding asset acquisition and disposal; that Warehouse shall maintain the Tire Center’s financial and

13 accounting records, and provide credit management services; that Warehouse shall develop marketing

14 plans and advertising promotions for the Tire Center; that Warehouse shall develop plans for the

15 management and control of consumer credit, employee benefits, pensions Workman’s Compensation,

16 liability insurance, and other management plans and make them available to the Tire Center, as well as

17 administer those plans; that Warehouse shall assist in the purchase of tools, machinery, and equipment,

18 and in negotiations for the lease or purchase of real property; and that Warehouse shall employ field

19 Representatives to provide marketing and management advice to the Tire Center. Id., Exhibit I. The

20 Tire Center, on the other hand, “shall be responsible for the day-to-day management, operation, and

21 staffing of its tire stores and other businesses.” Id.

22

While these factors may satisfy some of the requirements of the four-part test for Title VII

23 coverage, particularly as to demonstrating integrated operations and common management, they do not

24 subject the Warehouse to Title VII liability. Of the four requisite factors that would qualify Warehouse

25 as a joint employer for the purposes of liability (the power to hire and fire the employees, supervision and

26 control of employee work schedules or conditions of employment, determination of the rate and method

27 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL
28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 9

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 10 of 12

1 of payment, and maintenance of employment records), EEOC’s evidence only demonstrates the last one.

2 Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F. 2d at 1470. The “sine qua non” of the joint

3 employer test— whether the Warehouse has “the right to hire, supervise and fire employees” —is absent.

4 Garcia v. Courtesy Ford, Inc., 2008 WL 1192681 at *6. Thus, even when EEOC’s evidence is viewed in

5 a favorable light, it is insufficient to demonstrate that Warehouse is a joint employer of the individual

6 plaintiffs, and insufficient to withstand summary judgment on the Title VII claim.

7

Dismissal of plaintiffs’ Title VII claims against Warehouse Center is reasonable in light of the

8 allegations of the individual plaintiffs’ complaint. The essence of the two plaintiffs’ complaint is that it is

9 the practice of the Tire Centers to promote employees to the manager or assistant manager position

10 exclusively from the pool of “Sales and Service” employees. Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. # 113, ¶

11 4.4. Women are excluded from working in the “Sales and Service” division; they are only employed in

12 clerical and office positions (“Sales and Administration”). Women are therefore not eligible for

13 promotion to manager or assistant manager positions. Id. The result is that in the fifty years that Les

14 Schwab Tire Centers have been in business, there has never been a female manager, and a woman was

15 hired as an assistant manager only after plaintiffs filed their charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Id.,

16 ¶ 4.3. These allegations are very serious, but also highly specific—by their very terms they apply only to

17 the Tire Centers. Nowhere have plaintiffs alleged or demonstrated that the Warehouse Center follows

18 the same practice, or even that it has the same hierarchy of employees and managers. Nowhere have

19 plaintiffs alleged that women have been excluded from any particular position within the Warehouse

20 Center. Thus, Warehouse can only be subject to liability under Title VII in this action as a joint

21 employer. As plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Warehouse is a joint employer with the Tire

22 Centers, the motion for summary judgment shall be granted as to plaintiffs’ claims under Title VII.

23

III. Liability under the Washington Law Against Discrimination

24

The individual plaintiffs have also asserted claims of discrimination and retaliation under the

25 Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), RCW 49.60. The WLAD makes it an “unfair

26 practice for any employer . . . to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms of

27 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL
28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 11 of 12

1 conditions of employment because of . . . sex . . .” RCW 49.60.180(3). The definitions section of the

2 statute states that the term “employer” “includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly

3 or indirectly, who employs eight or more persons. . . .” RCW 49.60.040(3).

4

In moving for summary judgment on the WLAD claims, Warehouse has cited two Washington

5 cases which consider the definition of “employer” in the context of co-worker or shareholder liability

6 under the WLAD. In one, the Washington State Court of Appeals applied the “acting in the interest of”

7 language to determine that a co-worker was not subject to liability under the WLAD. Jenkins v. Palmer,

8 116 Wash. App. 671 (2003). In the other, the appellate court reversed a trial court ruling that the owner

9 of a closely-held corporation (a rental car company), rather than the company itself, was the “employer”

10 for the purposes of the WLAD. Patten v. Ackerman, 68 Wash. App. 831 (1993). Neither of these cases

11 provides any guidance on the question of liability of Warehouse under the WLAD.

12

The individual plaintiffs, for their part, have cited to a Washington Supreme Court case in which

13 the court found that managers and supervisors may be held personally liable under the WLAD when they

14 act in their employer’s interest. Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide, 143 Wash. 2d 349 (2001). This case,

15 like the ones above, is not directly applicable to the relationship between Warehouse and the Tire

16 Centers. It does, however, stand for the proposition that the “acting in the interest of an employer”

17 definition of “employer” in the WLAD is to be broadly construed. Id. at 357-58.

18

Plaintiffs contend that Jodi Hueske “acted on behalf of Tire Centers” when she testified as the

19 Tire Centers’ Rule 30(b)(6) representative, and that her testimony creates questions of fact regarding

20 whether the Warehouse acts “in the interest of” the Tire Centers within the meaning of the WLAD. The

21 Court agrees. While the parties did not brief this question fully, the Court notes that Ms. Hueske’s

22 testimony regarding the manager training conducted by Warehouse, the partnering with Unicru which

23 was mentioned in response to the question regarding recruitment of women, together with various

24 provisions of the Managerial and Administrative Services Agreement between the Warehouse and the

25 Tire Centers, all create an issue of fact as to the extent to which the Warehouse acts in the interest of the

26 Tire Center in these matters. While Warehouse argues that it would go too far to hold a “legally distinct

27 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL
28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 11

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 122 Filed 01/21/09 Page 12 of 12

1 entity” liable on the basis of its services performed under contract, this Court has previously found that a

2 similar situation does create an issue of fact regarding WLAD liability. See, Ayon v. Lincare, 2006 WL

3 2372294 at *4-5 (W.D.Wash. 2006) (denying summary judgment on WLAD liability to a separate

4 company which provided training services under contract to the plaintiff’s employer). Thus, while this

5 Court does not at this point hold Warehouse liable under the WLAD as a matter of law, it does find that

6 there are factual issues which preclude summary judgment.

7

CONCLUSION

8

As set forth above, the motion for summary judgment by defendant Warehouse is GRANTED as

9 to liability under Title VII, and DENIED as to liability under the Washington Law Against

10 Discrimination.

11

DATED this 21 day of January 2009,

12

A

13

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL
28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 12

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10
JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGEN MORRIS, on

11

behalf of themselves and all other similarly

NO. C06-0045 RSM

situated,
12

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

13

vs.

Plainti±Is,

CLASS ACTION

14
LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF

15

OREGON, INC, LES SCHWAB TIRE

CENTERS OF PORTLAND, INC, LES

16

SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF

17

WASHINGTON, INC, LES SCHWAB

WAREHOUSE CENTERS, INC,

DEMAND FOR WRY TRIAL

18
Det(mdants.
19

20

1

JURISDICTION

21

11 Plainti±Is Strange and Monis are both citizens of the State ofWashington.

22

1.2 Det(mdant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. is a corporation

23

incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington.

24
1.3 Det(mdant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon, Inc. IS a corporation
25
incorporated under the laws of the State of Oregon.
26

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - I of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 11

1.4 Det(mdant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Pmtland, Inc. IS a cmpmation
2 incmpmated under the laws of the State of Oregon.
3
1.5 Det(mdant Les Schwab Warehouse Centers, Inc. is a cmpmation incmpmated
4
under the laws of the State of Oregon.
5
1.6 Plaintitis' claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC
6

7

§§2000(e) et seq. The Comt has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 USC §§1331 and

8

1343(a)(4).

9

1.7 Additionally, the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs,

10

the sum specitied by 28 U.S.C:. § 1332(d)(2). This Comt has miginal jurisdiction over this

11

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

12

1.8 The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the named plainti±Is' individual

13

related state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

14
IT. PARTIES
15
2.1 Plaintiti Monis was tonnerly employed by Les Schwab Tire Centers of
16
Washington, Inc. She wmked at one, 01 mme, "Les Schwab Tire Centers" in the State of
17
Washington.
18

2.2 Plaintiti Strange was tonnerly employed by Les Schwab Tire Centers of
19

20

Washington, Inc. She wmked at a "Les Schwab Tire Center" in the State of Washington.

21

2.3 The defendants collectively operate mme than 50 retail tire stores in the states

22

of Washington and Oregon, all of which operate under the name "Les Schwab Tire Centers."

23

Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc. has, tor equal employment repmting purposes, identitied

24

itself as the parent cmpmation tor all Les Schwab Tire Center operations. Fm the purpose of

25

26

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - 2 of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 11

this action, the detendants together constitute a single integrated enterprise. The principal
2
place of business of all Les Schwab Tire Center operations is Prineville, Oregon.
3
Ill. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
4
3.1 Plaintitis bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
5
Procedure on behalf of a class of all women employed by any or all detendants in Washington
6

7

and Oregon and who were denied promotion, training and other employment oppmtunities

8

because of their sex. The class also includes women who applied tor employment with the

9

detendants but were not hired because of their sex and thus lost the oppmtunity tor

10

promotions, training and other employment oppmtunities with the detendants. After training,

11

plaintitis and other class members were eligible to, and were expected to, make themselves

12

available tor transter to any store in any state where the detendants operate if they wanted to

13

work in a management position. Plainti±Is and other class members sought or would have

14
sought, but tor detendants' discriminating practice, management positions in any or all states

15
in which there is any Les Schwab retail store.
16
3.2 The members of the class are suftlciently numerous that joinder of all members
17
1s impracticable. Plaintitis are intonned and believe that the class exceeds 200 temale
18

applicants and tanner and cunent temale employees of detendants.
19

20

There are questions of law and tact common to the class and these questions

21

predominate over individual questions. These same questions arise under Washington and

22

Oregon non-discrimination statutes. These common questions include, among others, (I)

23

whether detendants' policies and practices have a disparate impact on temale employees and

24

applicants with respect to hiring, promotions, training and other oppmtunities because of their

25

sex, (2) whether any disparate impact is justitied by business necessity, (3) whether disparate

26

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - 3 of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 4 of 11

impact constitutes a violation of the state nondiscrimination statutes in the states in which the
2
det(mdants do business, (4) whether det(mdants have engaged in a pattern and practice of
3
disparate treatment adverse to female applicants and employees, (5) whether such remedies as
4
Jiont and back pay and compensatory damages and emotional distress damages are wananted
5
tor the female employee class, and (6) whether punitive damages are wananted under
6

7

applicable state law.

8

3.4 The claims alleged by the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.

9

3.5 The plainti±Is will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

10

3.6 Class ce1titication is also appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

11

Procedure 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over questions

12

etlecting only individual members of the class and because a class action is superior to other

13

available methods tor the fair and etllcient adjudication of this litigation. The members of the

14
class have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of defendants' common,

15
uniform and unfair discriminatmy personnel policies and practices.
16
IV. DEFENDANTS' GENERAL PRACTICES OF DISCRIMINATION
17
4.1 There are more than 400 retail tire stores in the Western United States. All the
18

stores operate under the title ofLes Schwab Tire Centers.
19

20

4.2 In their retail store operations, including those in Washington and Oregon,

21

detendants employ standardized policies and procedures relating to hiring, statling and

22

promotions. The hierarchy of job positions in the retail stores are similar. There is one

23

Manager, one or more Assistant Managers, and two operating depa1tments ("Sales and

24

Se1vice" and "Sales and Administration"). Sales and Se1vice is that pa1t of the store

25

operations where tires are changed and some automotive repair work is done. The other

26

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - 4 of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 5 of 11

Depmtment, Sales and Administration, consists of otlice and clerical positions. Defendants
2
have more than 1,000 Manager and Assistant Manager positions in their retail stores.
3
4.3 Det(mdants Les Schwab Tire Centers have been in business tor more than 50
4
years. To date, there has never been a temale manager of any Les Schwab Tire Center retail
5
store. Only after plaintitis filed a charge with the Equal Employment Oppmtunity
6

7

Commission did detendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington hire one temale as an

8

Assistant Manager. Plainti±Is are intonned and so believe that none of the other detendants

9

have ever hired a temale Assistant Manager.

10

4.4 Although there are no written criteria tor promotion to either Assistant

11

Manager or General Manager, detendants claim that such promotions are based on merit and

12

experience fiom working in the Sales and Se1vice division. Detendants systematically

13

exclude temales fiom working in the Sales and Se1vice depa1tments in their retail stores.

14
4.5 Detendants have pursued policies and practices on a continuing basis which

15
have had the etlect of denying equal employment oppmtunities to qualitied women applicants
16
and employees. Such policies and practices include, without limitation:
17
(a) Reliance upon subjective gender based and/or arbitrary criteria used by
18

detendants in making hiring, promotion, and training decisions.
19

20

(b) Discouraging temales fiom seeking employment, or seeking and/or applying

21

tor promotions, training and other oppo1tunities because of their sex.

22

(c) Failing and refusing to consider temales tor hire or tor promotion, training and

23

other oppo1tunities because of their sex.

24

(d) Failing and refusing to hire or promote temales on the same basis as males are

25

hired, promoted and trained.

26

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - 5 of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 6 of 11

(e) Establishing and maintaining arbitrary and subjective requirements tor hiring,
2
promotions, training and other oppmtunities which have the etlect of excluding
3
qualitied temale applicants and qualitied temale employees which have not
4
been shown to have any signiticant relationship to job per±onnance or to be
5
necessary to the sate and etlicient conduct of detendants' business.
6

7

(t) Failing and refusing to take adequate steps to eliminate the etlects of its past

8

discriminatmy practices.

9

(g) Retaliating against women employees who complaint of unequal treatment.

10

4.6 Detendants employment practices have a purpose and intent of excluding

11

women Jiom management positions and/or positions designed to lead to management

12

positions. Such practices constitute disparate treatment on the basis of gender. Such practices

13

also have a disparate impact on the basis of gender.

14
V. CLAIM OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS
15
5.1 Named plainti±Is Strange and Monis both tiled charges with the Equal
16
Employment Oppmtunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation and constmctive
17
discharge. Both named plaintitls have received a Notice of Right to Sue Jiom the EEOC with
18
respect to their retaliation/constmctive discharge claims. Plaintitls have theretore exhausted
19

20

their administrative remedies and fultilled all conditions precedent to suit under Title VII.

21

VI. CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 USC §§2000(e) et seq.

22
6.1 Plaintins incorporate paragraphs 1.1 through 5.1.

23

6.2 This claim is brought on behalf of plaintiti Strange individually tor her
24

retaliation, constmctive discharge claim. Detendant discriminated against the plainti±I by
25

26

retaliating against her tor filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Detendant's

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - 6 of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 7 of 11

retaliatmy practices resulted in plainti±I being constructively discharged. Plainti±I has

2
suffered the loss of past and future wages and other job benefits and has caused plainti±I to
3
suffer humiliation, embanassment and emotional distress.
4
6.3 Det(mdant did the acts alleged with malice or reckless inditlerence to the
5

protective rights of plainti±I Plaintitl' therefore requests relief as provided tor below in her
6

7

prayer.

8

Vll CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 USC §§2000(e) et seq.

9

7.1 Plainti±Is incorporate paragraphs 1.1 through 6.3.

10

7.2 This claim is brought on behalf of plaintitl' Monis individually tor her
11

retaliation, constructive discharge claim. Defendant discriminated against the plainti±I by
12

13

retaliating against her tor filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Defendant's

14

retaliatmy practices resulted in plainti±I being constructively discharged. Plainti±I has

1 5

sutlered the loss of past and future wages and other job benefits and has caused plainti±I to

16

sutler humiliation, embanassment and emotional distress.

17

7.3 Defendant did the acts alleged with malice or reckless inditlerence to the

18

protective rights of plainti±I Plaintitl' therefore requests relief as provided tor below in her

19

prayer.

20
Vlll CLAIMFORRELIEF: STATEOFWASHINGTON
21
8.1 Plainti±Is incorporate paragraphs 1.1 through 7.3.
22
8.2 This claim is brought on behalf of named plainti±Is and all members of the
23
class.
24
8.3 The foregoing conduct violates Washington State Law Against Discrimination
25

26

(RC:W 49.60).

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - 7 of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 8 of 11

8.4 Det(mdants have engaged in the pattern and practice of intentional
2
discrimination against the class and have denied women the same oppmtunities tor hiring,
3
promotion, training and other oppmtunities atlorded to similarly situated male applicants and
4
employees.
5
8.5 Det(mdants' employment practices have an unlawful disparate impact based on
6

7

gender.

8

8.6 Det(mdants discriminatmy practices described above have resulted in a loss of

9

past and future wages and other job benetits and have caused plainti±Is to sutler humiliation,

1 0

embanassment and emotional distress.

11

8.7 Plaintitis request tor relief are provided tor below in the prayer.

12

IX. CLAIM FOR RELIEF: STATE OF OREGON

13

9.1 Plaintitis incorporate paragraphs 1.1 through 8.7.

14
9.2 This claim is brought on behalf of named plainti±Is and all members of the

15
class.
16
9.3 The toregoing conduct violates the Oregon State Fair Employment Practices
17
Act (ORS C:h. 659A).
18

9.4 Det(mdants have engaged in the pattern and practice of intentional
19

20

discrimination against the class and have denied women the same oppmtunities tor hiring,

21

promotion, training and other oppmtunities atlorded to similarly situated male applicants and

22

employees.

23

9.5 Det(mdants' employment practices have an unlawful disparate impact based on

24

gender.

25

26

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - 8 of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 9 of 11

9.6 Det(mdants discriminatory practices described above have resulted in a loss of

2
past and future wages and other job benetits and have caused plainti±Is to suffer humiliation,
3
embanassment and emotional distress. Plaintiffs and class members are also entitled to
4
recover punitive damages as authorized by law in an amount to be determined according to
5

proof
6

7

9.7 Plainti±Is request tor relief are provided tor below in the prayer.

8

X. CLAIM FOR RELIEF: RETALIATION CLAIM

ARISING UNDER RCW 49.60

9

10.1 Plainti±Is incorporate paragraphs 1.1 through 9.7.

10

10.2 This claim is brought on behalf of plainti±Is Jennifer Strange and Magen
11

Monis individually tor their retaliation claims.
12

13

10.3 Det(mdants retaliated against the plainti±Is on the basis of their gender by

14

refusing to promote, train or provide them other oppmtunities because they filed a charge of

15

discrimination with the Equal Employment Oppmtunity Commission and the Washington

16

State Human Rights Commission.

17

10.4 Det(mdants constmctively discharged plainti±Is Strange and Monis in

18

retaliation tor their filing of charges with the Equal Employment Oppmtunity Commission

19

and Washington State Human Rights Commission.

20
10.5 Det(mdants discriminatory and retaliatory practices have resulted in the loss of
21
past and future wages, other job benefits and have caused plainti±Is to suffer humiliation,
22
embanassment and emotional distress.
23
10.6 Plainti±Is' requests tor relief are provided tor below in the prayer.
24

25

XL PRAYER FOR RELIEF

26

WHEREFORE, plainti±Is and members of the class pray tor relief as follows:

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - 9 of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 10 of 11

11.1 Certification of the class as a class action on behalf of the proposed plaintiff
2
class and designation as plainti±Is as representatives of the class and their counsel of record as
3
class counsel.
4
11.2 All damages which individual plainti±Is and class members have sustained as a
5
result of the det(mdants' conduct including back pay, fiont pay, general and special damages
6

7

tor lost compensation and job benefits they would have received but tor the discriminatory

8

practices of defendants.

9

11.3 For emotional distress, humiliation, embanassment and anguish according to

1 o

proof

11

11.4 For plaintifis Jennifer Strange and Magen Monis individual non-class

12

retaliation claims of all damages they have sustained as a result of defendants conduct

13

including back pay, fiont pay, general and specific damages tor lost compensation and job

14
benefits they would have received but tor the discriminatmy practices of defendants and

15
damages tor emotional distress according to proof
16
11.5 Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount consistent with the law.
17
11.6 For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law.
18

11.7 For all costs and expenses incuned herein, including reasonable attorney's tees
19

20

to the extent available by law.

21

11.8 For such fi.uther and other legal and equitable relief as the C:omt may deem just

22

and proper.

23

24

25

26

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - 10 of 11

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 20 Filed 07/18/06 Page 11 of 11

Dated this 18'h day ofJuly, 2006.

2

GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANC:A,

3

PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP

4

By: /s/ Lewis L. Ellswmth 7/18/06

5

Lewis L. Ellswmth, WSBA No. 11360

6

lellswoith@gth-law.com

Attomeys tor Plaintiffs

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FIRST Al'v1ENDED COMPLAINT. CLASS ACTION. JURY - II of II

(C06-0045 RSM)
[1336111 Y6.doc]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA,
PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401-1157 12531620-6500 - FACSIMILE 12531620-6565

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 24 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 6

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY 2 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT 3 350 EMBARCADERO, SUITE 500
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-1260
4
JOHN STANLEY, ACTING, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY 5 WESLEY KATAHIRA, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY 6 MOLLY KUCUK, TRIAL ATTORNEY
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 7 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98104 8 TEL: (206) 220-6892
FAX: (206) 220-6911 9 Molly.Kucuk@eeoc.gov
10
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
11

12

13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
14

15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

16 COMMISSION,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

17

Plaintiff,
18

COMPLAINT

19

v.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

20 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., LES SCHWAB
21 WAREHOUSE CENTER, INC.,

22
23
24 / / / 25 / / /

Defendants.

COMPLAINT- Page 1 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 24 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 6

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1

2

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Title I

3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appro-

4 priate relief to Magen Morris, Jennifer Strange and similarly situated individuals who were

5 adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the
6
EEOC") alleges that defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. and Les Schwab
7
Warehouse Center, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as “Les Schwab” or “defendants”)
8
violated Title VII by discriminating against Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange and similarly situated
9
10 individuals on the basis of sex when defendants failed to provide training opportunities to them

11 and when it failed to promote them to management positions on the basis of sex. The EEOC also

12 alleges that Les Schwab violated Title VII when it failed to hire female applicants for positions

13 in the sale/service departments of Les Schwab Tire Center facilities on the basis of sex.

14
15
1.
16

JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and

1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of
17

18

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq.

19

("Title VII") and section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

20 2.
21
22
23
3.
24
25

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
PARTIES Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of

COMPLAINT- Page 2 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 24 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 6

1 2
3 4.

Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). At all relevant times, defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. and Les

4

Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc. have continuously been employers engaged in an

5
6
7
5.
8
9
10

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). At all relevant times, defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, Inc. Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc. have been corporations continuously doing business in the State of Washington and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

11

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

12 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Magen Morris and Jennifer

13

Strange filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title

14
VII by Les Schwab. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been
15
fulfilled.
16

7. Since at least January 1, 2004, defendants have engaged in unlawful employment
17

18

practices at their facilities in Washington state and other states in which they conduct

19

business in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). These

20

practices include discriminating against Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange and similarly situated

21
females based on sex, when they failed to train them for management positions and when
22
they failed to promote them into management positions. Further, defendants
23
discriminated against female applicants for sales/service positions when they failed to
24

25

hire them because of sex.

COMPLAINT- Page 3 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 24 Filed 08/01/06 Page 4 of 6

8.
1 2 3

The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants or employees

4

because of the discrimination that occurred.

5 9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

6
intentional.
7
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with
8
malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Morris, Ms.
9

10

Strange and similarly situated individuals.

11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

13 A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendants and their officers, agents, successors,
14
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in
15
discrimination against any of their employees.
16
B. Order defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which
17

18

prevent their employees from being subjected to discrimination and which eradicate the

19

effects of past and present unlawful employment practices.

20 C. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated
21
individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to
22
be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of
23
their unlawful employment practices described above.
24

25

COMPLAINT- Page 4 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 24 Filed 08/01/06 Page 5 of 6

D. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated
1

2

individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting

3

from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including

4

without limitation past and future out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at

5

trial.

6
E. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated
7
individuals by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting
8
from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without
9

10

limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to

11

determined at trial.

12 F. Order defendants to pay Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange and similarly situated individuals

13

punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7

14
above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
15
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
16

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
17

18 / / /

19 / / /

20 / / /
21
/ / /
22
/ / /
23
/ / /
24
25 / / /

COMPLAINT- Page 5 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 24 Filed 08/01/06 Page 6 of 6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
1

2

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

3

DATED this 31st day of May, 2006.

4 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO 5 Regional Attorney

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

6 JOHN STANLEY Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney
7
WESLEY KATAHIRA 8 Senior Trial Attorney
9 MOLLY KUCUK Trial Attorney
10

GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel

11
BY:

/s/ William R. Tamayo_________

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

13 San Francisco District Office

350 The Embarcadero, Ste. 500 14 San Francisco, California 94105-1260

15 Telephone (415) 625-5645 Facsimile (415) 625-5657

Office of the General Counsel 1801 “L” Street NW Washington, D.C. 20507

16
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT- Page 6 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 33 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 6

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10

AT SEATTLE

11

12 JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGEN MORRIS,

13 on behalf of themselves and all others

14 15

similarly situated,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-045-RSM

16

17

Plaintiffs,

18

19

v.

20

21 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF
22 OREGON, INC., et al.,
23

PROTECTIVE ORDER

24

Defendant.

25

26

27

28 29

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

30 COMMISSION,

31

32

Plaintiff,

33

34

v.

35

36 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF

37 WASHINGTON, INC., LES SCHWAB

38 39

WAREHOUSE CENTER, INC.,

40

41

42

Defendants.

43

44

45

46

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of

47
Civil Procedure, it is hereby ordered that the following provisions shall apply to all

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER- 1
30076-0021/LEGAL12562669.1

Perkins Coie LLP The PSE Building 10885 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004-5579 Phone: (425) 635-1400 Fax: (425) 635-2400

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 33 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 2 of 6

documents, information, or things furnished in the course of this litigation during discovery

1 or otherwise, or specific portions thereof, that are designated by a party as “Confidential”

2

3 (also referred to as “Confidential” materials) as further described below.

4

5

1. This Protective Order shall apply whether the materials or documents have

6

7 been produced pursuant to formal discovery, by subpoena, or by agreement.

8

9

2. The term "documents" as hereinafter used includes but is not limited to

10
11 writings, photographs, electronic media extracts, summaries thereof, and attachments thereto;

12

13 answers to interrogatories; requests for admission and answers thereto; deposition transcripts

14

15 and exhibits; answers to requests for production; and any portions of Court papers which

16

17 quote from or summarize any of the foregoing.

18

19

3. All documents, information and/or things produced in this litigation, or

20

21 specific portions thereof, may be marked or otherwise designated by the parties as

22

23 "Confidential" if:

24

25

(a) They contain financial or other proprietary information that is held

26

27

confidential by either party;

28

29

(b) They are part of an individual's applicant or personnel file or records, equal

30

31

employment opportunity complaint or investigation file, or similar files,

32

33

including the individual's identifying information (such as his or her name,

34

35

address, telephone number, social security number, driver’s license number,

36

37

or bank account numbers) that a party to this litigation treats as confidential;

38

39

(c) They describe, contain, or disclose internal corporate information that is

40

41

legitimately held confidential within the corporation; or

42

43

(d) They contain medical records or other health care information, even if said

44

45

health care information is produced by a third party pursuant to stipulation or

46

47

subpoena.

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER- 2
30076-0021/LEGAL12562669.1

Perkins Coie LLP The PSE Building 10885 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004-5579 Phone: (425) 635-1400 Fax: (425) 635-2400

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 33 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 3 of 6

The determination of whether produced materials fall into one of the above categories shall

1 be made in the first instance in good faith by the party from whom discovery is sought. If

2

3 there is a disagreement between the parties as to whether particular produced materials have

4
5 been properly designated as "Confidential," the parties may seek Court assistance to resolve

6

7 the dispute in accordance with paragraph 11.

8

9

4. If either party determines to mark documents, information, or things as

10
11 confidential, that shall be done by stamping each confidential page of said document with the

12

13 notice "Confidential" prior to its production. In the case of non-documentary materials,

14

15 "Confidential" shall be marked prominently on the item. Confidential documents or things

16

17 shall be used by the receiving party only for the prosecution and/or defense of this litigation

18

19 and for no other purpose.

20

21

5. Confidential documents, including deposition transcripts, may be referred to

22

23 in interrogatory answers, motions, and briefs, and may be used at or in depositions; however,

24

25 the parties shall confer regarding measures to protect such documents' confidentiality. If

26

27 another party's Confidential documents are to be filed with the Court, used at trial, or used at

28

29 any court hearing, then at least ten (10) days before the trial or hearing the party seeking to

30

31 use such Confidential document shall notify the other party to give that party an opportunity

32

33 to file a motion with the Court regarding the Confidential document.

34

35

6. Any document, information, or thing not designated as “Confidential” shall

36

37 not be covered by this Order, provided however, that inadvertent production of any

38

39 document, information or thing not designated “Confidential” shall not be deemed a waiver

40
41 of confidentiality as to such matter, and a party thereafter may designate the same as

42

43 “Confidential” promptly upon being advised or discovery of the inadvertent disclosure.

44

45 Disclosure by any party of such matter prior to notice of the confidential nature thereof shall

46
47 not be deemed a violation of this Protective Order.

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER- 3
30076-0021/LEGAL12562669.1

Perkins Coie LLP The PSE Building 10885 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004-5579 Phone: (425) 635-1400 Fax: (425) 635-2400

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 33 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 4 of 6

7. Except as expressly provided for in this Protective Order, any “Confidential”

1 document, information, or thing or portion thereof marked “Confidential,” shall not be

2

3 communicated or disclosed in any manner, either directly or indirectly, to any person or

4
5 entity, except:

6

7

(a) Any party and their attorneys of record, associate counsel, paralegals, and

8

9

office or other support staff assisting counsel in the conduct of this litigation;

10

11

(b) Any person who was an author or addressee of the document or who is shown

12

13

on the document as having received a copy of it;

14

15

(c) The Court, jury, Court personnel, Court reporters, and similar persons;

16

17

(d) Employees of defendant consulted by counsel for purposes of assisting in the

18

19

preparation, investigation, presentation of claims or defenses in this litigation,

20

21

settlement, trial or appeal of this action;

22

23

(e) Any person whose deposition is noted or potential trial witness, as well as

24

25

their counsel, when shown to such witness before or during his or her

26

27

testimony, but (1) only to the extent counsel for the disclosing party

28

29

determines in good faith that it is reasonably necessary to do so, and

30

31

(2) subject to paragraph 9 below;

32

33

(f) Consultants and experts retained by any party for purposes of assisting in the

34

35

preparation, investigation, or presentation of claims or defenses in this

36

37

litigation, settlement, trial, or appeal of this action; or

38

39

(g) Any other person with the prior written consent of the party producing the

40

41

document.

42

43

8. Prior to being shown "Confidential" documents, any person falling within

44

45 paragraph 7(e) through 7(g) hereof shall agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this

46
47 order by signing an agreement to be found in the form of Attachment A hereto.

Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER- 4
30076-0021/LEGAL12562669.1

Perkins Coie LLP The PSE Building 10885 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004-5579 Phone: (425) 635-1400 Fax: (425) 635-2400

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 33 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 5 of 6

9. A deponent may, prior to and/or during the deposition, be shown and

1 examined about confidential documents in compliance with the provisions of paragraphs 7

2

3 and 8. Deponents shall not retain or copy any confidential documents not provided by them

4
5 that were disclosed during their depositions or any portions of the transcript of their

6

7 depositions that contain confidential information not provided by them.

8

9

10. Parties may, within 30 days after receiving a deposition transcript, designate

10
11 pages of that transcript (and exhibits thereto not already designated Confidential) that comply

12

13 with the criteria set forth in paragraph 3 as Confidential. Confidential information within the

14

15 deposition transcript may be designated by underlining the portions of the pages that are

16

17 confidential and marking such pages with substantially the following legend: "Confidential--

18

19 Subject to protection pursuant to Court order." Until the expiration of the 30-day period, the

20

21 entire deposition will be treated as subject to protection against disclosure under this order.

22

23 If no party timely designates confidential information in a deposition, then none of the

24

25 transcript or its exhibits not previously designated as Confidential will be treated as

26

27 Confidential unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the Court; if a timely

28

29 designation is made, and no objection is made by the other party, the Confidential portions

30

31 and exhibits shall be filed under seal separate from the portions and exhibits not so marked.

32

33

11. If a party challenges the confidential designation of any document,

34
35 information, or thing, it shall so notify the designating party in writing. The parties agree

36

37 that before seeking any relief from the Court under this paragraph, they will make a good

38

39 faith effort to resolve any disputes concerning the treatment of any “Confidential” materials.

40
41 If the challenge is not resolved, the designating party will move the Court for a protective

42

43 order seeking a Confidential designation for the material. If the designating party fails to

44

45 move for a protective order within ten (10) days after good faith negotiations to resolve the

46
47 challenge has ended, the material in question shall lose its Confidential designation.

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER- 5
30076-0021/LEGAL12562669.1

Perkins Coie LLP The PSE Building 10885 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004-5579 Phone: (425) 635-1400 Fax: (425) 635-2400

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 33 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 6 of 6

12. No later than sixty (60) days following the "conclusion of these proceedings,"

1 as defined below, counsel and every person to whom “Confidential” material has been

2

3 distributed shall return all "Confidential" material to counsel for the party producing them,

4
5 together with all abstracts, copies, and other documents containing any information contained

6

7 within the documents, including those portions of depositions designated as confidential

8

9 pursuant to this Protective Order, excepting those materials which contain or reflect

10
11 “Confidential” material but which constitute counsels’ work product (and all copies thereof),

12

13 which counsel shall destroy. The recipient party may, as an alternative, destroy the

14

15 documents and provide opposing counsel with a declaration so indicating. "Conclusion of

16

17 these proceedings" refers to the conclusion of this matter by trial or settlement and, if

18

19 concluded by trial, the exhaustion of available appeals or the running of time for taking such

20

21 appeals, as provided by applicable law.

22

23

13. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions, if a Confidential document

24

25 of one party makes reference to the conduct or affairs of any potential witness, counsel may

26

27 discuss such conduct or affairs with the witness without revealing the document or that such

28

29 document exists. Such discussion shall not constitute disclosure within the terms of this

30

31 Protective Order.

32

33

14. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prevent any party or nonparty to this

34
35 action from seeking modification of this Protective Order as to any specific document for

36

37 good cause shown or from objecting to discovery which it believes to be otherwise improper.

38

39

IT IS SO ORDERED this __11___ day of December, 2006.

40

41

42 43 44

A

45 46

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER- 6
30076-0021/LEGAL12562669.1

Perkins Coie LLP The PSE Building 10885 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004-5579 Phone: (425) 635-1400 Fax: (425) 635-2400

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 36 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 6

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
1

2

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

4

AT SEATTLE

5

6 JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGEN MORRIS,

7 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-045-RSM

8

Plaintiffs,

PLAINTIFF EEOC’S FIRST AMENDED

9

COMPLAINT

v.

10
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

11 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF

OREGON, INC., et al.,
12

Defendants.

13 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

14 COMMISSION

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., LES SCHWAB

18 WAREHOUSE CENTER, INC., LES

SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF BOISE, 19 INC., LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF

CALIFORNIA, INC., LES SCHWAB TIRE 20 CENTERS OF IDAHO, INC., LES

21 SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF MONTANA, INC., LES SCHWAB TIRE

22 CENTERS OF PORTLAND, INC., LES

SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF NEVADA, 23 INC., LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF

24 UTAH, INC.,

25

Defendants.

[PROPOSED] PLAINTIFF EEOC’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 1 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 36 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 6

1

2

NATURE OF THE ACTION

3

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Title I

4 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appro-

5 priate relief to Magen Morris, Jennifer Strange and similarly situated individuals who were
6
adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the
7
EEOC" or “the Commission”) alleges that defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington,
8
Inc. Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise, Inc., Les Schwab
9
10 Tire Centers of California, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho, Inc., Les Schwab Tire

11 Centers of Montana, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of

12 Nevada, Inc., and Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as “Les
13 Schwab” or “defendants”) violated Title VII by discriminating against Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange
14
and similarly situated individuals on the basis of sex when defendants failed to provide training
15
opportunities to them and when it failed to promote them to management positions on the basis
16
of sex. The EEOC also alleges that Les Schwab violated Title VII when it failed to hire female
17
18 applicants for positions in the sale/service departments of Les Schwab Tire Center facilities on

19 the basis of sex.

20 21
1.
22 23 24 25

JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

[PROPOSED] PLAINTIFF EEOC’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 2 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 36 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 6

2.
1 2 3

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and within the jurisdictions of United States District Courts in all states in which defendants conduct

4

business.

5 6
3.
7 8 9 10

PARTIES Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the 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 Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

11 4. At all relevant times, defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an

12
13
14
5.
15
16
17
18

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). At all relevant times, defendants have been corporations continuously doing business in the states of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Nevada and have continuously had at least 15 employees.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

19 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Magen Morris and Jennifer

20

Strange filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by

21
Les Schwab. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been
22
fulfilled.
23
7. Since at least January 1, 2004, defendants have engaged in unlawful employment
24

25

practices at their facilities in Washington state and all other states in which they conduct

[PROPOSED] PLAINTIFF EEOC’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 3 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 36 Filed 02/15/07 Page 4 of 6

business in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). These
1

2

practices include discriminating against Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange and similarly situated

3

females based on sex, when they failed to train them for management positions and when

4

they failed to promote them into management positions. Further, defendants

5
6
7
8.
8
9
10

discriminated against female applicants for sales/service positions when they failed to hire them because of sex. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants or employees

11

because of the discrimination that occurred.

12 9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

13

intentional.

14
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with
15
malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Morris, Ms.
16

Strange and similarly situated individuals.
17

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

20 A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendants and their officers, agents, successors,
21
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in
22
discrimination against any of their employees.
23

24

25

[PROPOSED] PLAINTIFF EEOC’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 4 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 36 Filed 02/15/07 Page 5 of 6

B. Order defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which
1

2

prevent their employees from being subjected to discrimination and which eradicate the

3

effects of past and present unlawful employment practices.

4 C. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated

5

individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to

6
be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of
7
their unlawful employment practices described above.
8
D. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated
9

10

individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting

11

from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including

12

without limitation past and future out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at

13

trial.

14
E. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange, and similarly situated
15
individuals by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting
16

from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without
17

18

limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to

19

determined at trial.

20 F. Order defendants to pay Ms. Morris, Ms. Strange and similarly situated individuals
21
punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7
22
above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
23
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
24
25 H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

[PROPOSED] PLAINTIFF EEOC’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 5 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 36 Filed 02/15/07 Page 6 of 6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
1

2

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

3

DATED this 15th Day of February 2007.

4
WILLIAM R. TAMAYO 5 Regional Attorney
6
JOHN F. STANLEY 7 Senior Trial Attorney

RONALD COOPER General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel

8 LISA COX Trial Attorney
9

GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel

10
11 BY: /s/William R. Tamayo_____________ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
12 COMMISSION San Francisco District Office
13 350 The Embarcadero, Ste. 500 San Francisco, California 94105-1260
14 Telephone (415) 625-5645 15 Facsimile (415) 625-5657

Office of the General Counsel 1801 “L” Street NW Washington, D.C. 20507

16 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 17 Seattle Field Office
909 1st Avenue, Suite 400
18
Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
19 Telephone (206) 220-6896 Facsimile (206) 220-6911
20 JOHN.STANLEY@EEOC.GOV

21

Attorneys for Plaintiff

22

23

24

25

[PROPOSED] PLAINTIFF EEOC’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 6 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 71 Filed 08/08/08 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10 JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGAN MORRIS, on

11

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF OREGON, 15 INC., et al.,

16

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-045RSM
ORDER ON SECOND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

17 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
18 COMMISSION,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,
22
Defendants. 23

24

This matter is now before the Court for consideration of the individual plaintiffs’ renewed motion

25 for class certification. Dkt. # 66. The Court denied plaintiffs’ original motion as untimely under Local

26 Rule CR 23(f)(3), which requires that a motion for class certification be filed within one hundred eighty

27 ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLASS
28 CERTIFICATION - 1

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 71 Filed 08/08/08 Page 2 of 2

1 days after the filing of a complaint with class allegations. Dkt. # 62. The Court noted in its previous

2 Order that enforcing this procedural rule was not prejudicial to plaintiffs, as their motion was unlikely to

3 succeed on the merits because plaintiffs could not meet the F.R.Civ.Proc. 23(b)(3) requirement of

4 demonstrating that common questions of fact predominate over individual issues. See, Dkt. # 62, p. 3-4.

5

Shortly after the Court issued its previous ruling denying class certification, the parties stipulated

6 to an extension of all pretrial dates and a new trial date. Dkt. # 63. Plaintiffs then moved a second time

7 for class certification, asserting that the motion is no longer untimely, “[g]iven that the trial is now more

8 than one year away from the date this motion is filed.” Dkt. # 66, p. 1. However, the time for filing a

9 class certification motion prescribed in the local rules is determined from the date of filing of the

10 complaint, not from the trial date. The filing date has not changed. Nor have plaintiffs in their motion

11 satisfied the Court’s concerns regarding the “common questions of fact” requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).

12 Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification is accordingly DENIED.

13

Dated this 8th day of August, 2008.

14

A

15

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLASS
28 CERTIFICATION - 2

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 1 of 15

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
1

2

3

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5

AT SEATTLE

6

7 JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGEN MORRIS,

8 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-045-RSM

9

Plaintiffs,

PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION TO

10

BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY

v.

11
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:

12 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF OREGON, INC., et al.,

October 10, 2008

13

14

Defendants.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

15 COMMISSION

16
Plaintiff,
17
v.
18 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., et. al.,
19
20 Defendant.

21

22

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) and International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. U.S., 431

23 U.S. 324, 361 (1977), Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)

24
moves the Court to enter an Order bifurcating both the trial and discovery in this public

25
enforcement action, and to set a schedule in this case consistent with the attached proposed

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 1 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 2 of 15

Order. The EEOC also seeks an order deferring in-depth discovery regarding individual class
1
2 member damages until after the liability trial is concluded based on the large number of putative 3 class members. 1

4

I. Procedural Background

5

The EEOC filed this suit on May 31, 2006, claiming that Les Schwab Tire Centers of

6
Washington, Inc. had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Magen Morris,
7
Jennifer Strange and a class of similarly situated female employees in violation of Title VII of
8
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Defendant failed to train or promote them to management
9

10 positions based on their sex.2 The EEOC’s suit also claims that Defendant engaged in a pattern

11 or practice of discrimination against a class of similarly situated female applicants when

12 Defendant failed to hire them for sales/service department positions because of their sex. On
13 February 15, 2007, EEOC amended its complaint to include eight related Les Schwab
14
corporations as co-defendants, e.g., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise, Inc. (collectively,
15
“Defendants”), and to clarify that Defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of
16
discrimination against Morris, Strange and similarly situated female employees, and similarly
17
18 situated female applicants, in each of the seven states in which Defendants conduct business.

19

Defendants will not be prejudiced by the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate trial and discovery

20 in this case given its conduct of discovery to date.3 In fact, Defendants’ decision to provide
21
select portions of its applicant flow and personnel data to the EEOC over the period December
22

23

1 While EEOC uses the term "class members" as convenient shorthand to reference the aggrieved persons regarding

24

whom it seeks victim-specific relief in this case, EEOC notes that its enforcement actions are not subject to Rule 23 certification requirements. See, e.g., General Telephone Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 324 (1980).

2 The EEOC’s suit covered Defendant’s personnel actions starting on January 1, 2004.

25

3 The EEOC notes that it did not have all of Defendants’ applicant flow or personnel data when it filed the first joint

status report with the Court in September 2006. (Court File Dkt. #29).

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

Page 2 of 15

OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION Seattle Field Office

909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911

TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 3 of 15

2006 to April 25, 2008 has created the need for the instant bifurcation motion. While the EEOC
1
2 chose not to seek sanctions against Defendants for its conduct of discovery, a brief review 3 shows: (1) Defendants first provided useable electronic HR/payroll data (“Infinium”) to the

4 EEOC in December 2007, a year after the EEOC had first requested the data in October 2006, to

5 confirm which applicants were actually hired for sales/service positions; (2) Defendants provided
6
approximately 30,000 electronic applications (“Unicru”) to the EEOC in November 2007, much
7
of which was in hard to convert XML format that the EEOC was only recently able to convert
8
into useable form after Defendants provided further clarification of the nature of the electronic
9
10 data on June 27, 2008; and (3) Defendants provided an additional 43,825 application documents

11 (comprising over 13,500 applications) to the EEOC on April 25, 2008, applicant flow data that

12 the EEOC had requested on October 5, 2006. (See Declaration of Damien A. Lee in Support of

13 Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery, ¶¶ 3 through 10, hereinafter, “Decl.
14
of D. Lee”). Defendants’ application dump of April 25, 2008 caused the EEOC significant
15
hardship from a resource and staffing perspective. It also required the EEOC and its expert to
16
redo many of our analyses.
17

18

Based on the voluminous applicant flow information Defendants provided as recently as

19 April 25, 2008, EEOC presently estimates that the potential class for its failure-to-hire case may

20 approach 1,800 females. EEOC also seeks back pay, and compensatory and punitive damages
21
awards for this class of females who Defendants did not hire for sales/service jobs, as well as
22
other injunctive and other non-monetary remedies, and seeks back pay, and compensatory and
23
punitive damages awards for Morris, Strange and a class of female employees who were not
24
25 trained or promoted to managerial positions.

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 3 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 4 of 15

Given the foregoing, EEOC seeks an order bifurcating trial and discovery in this case as
1
2 prescribed by the Supreme Court in Teamsters: (1) Stage I, to first determine liability for the
3 alleged pattern or practice; and (2) Stage II to separately determine damages for each individual
4 class member. If the plaintiff prevails at the Stage I liability trial, the individual class members
5 are then entitled to a presumption that the employer has discriminated against them at the Stage
6
II proceedings. Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 361; Thiessen v. Gen’l Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d
7
1095, 1106 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 934 (2002). Because of this legal
8
presumption, bifurcation according to the Teamsters model is the customary and most efficient
9
10 way of proceeding in a pattern-or-practice case, to avoid jury confusion and to conserve the
11 Court’s and the parties’ resources. Thiessen., 267 F.3d at 1106 (“pattern-or-practice cases are
12 typically tried in two or more stages”); Hill v. Western Electric Co., 672 F.2d 381 (4th Cir. 1982)
13 (“[b]ifurcation of Title VII class action proceedings on liability and damages is now
14
commonplace”); see also Berger v. Iron Workers Reinforced Rodmen, Local 201, 170 F.3d 1111,
15
1124 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Sledge v. J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc., 585 F.2d 625, 637 (4th Cir. 1978);
16
U.S. v. United States Steel Corp., 520 F.2d 1043, 1053-54 (5th Cir. 1975); EEOC v. Monarch
17
18 Machine Tool Co., 737 F.2d 1444, 1449-50 (6th Cir. 1980); Craik v. Minnesota State Univ. Bd.,
19 731 F.2d 465, 469-70 (8th Cir. 1984). Additionally, the EEOC will need a slight modification of
20 the schedule for the contemplated Stage I discovery to contact potential class members identified
21
as a result of the 43,825 additional application documents that Defendants provided on April 25,
22
2008. EEOC also seeks an order deferring in-depth discovery regarding individual claimant
23
damages until after the Stage I trial has concluded based on the large number of putative class
24
25

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 4 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 5 of 15

members. The EEOC recommends that the schedule regarding Stage II proceedings not be set
1
2 until after Stage I proceedings have been concluded.

3

II. Argument

4

A. The EEOC Has Broad Enforcement Powers to Bring Pattern or Practice

Cases on Behalf of the Public
5

6

The EEOC has broad enforcement power which is not constrained by the limits of

7
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 23. Gen’l. Telephone v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 329 (1980); see also, EEOC v.
8
Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. Inc., 990 F.Supp. 1059, 1069-70 (C.D. Ill. 1998). In protecting the public
9
from ongoing discriminatory practices, the EEOC may expand an individual charge to a class-
10
11 wide complaint based on unlawful conduct uncovered during the investigation. EEOC v. UPS,

12 860 F.2d 372, 374-5 (10th Cir. 1988). Courts have consistently affirmed that the EEOC has

13 unique power to prosecute unlawful employment practices on behalf of broadly-defined classes.

14 See, In re Bemis Co., 279 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 2002). As the Supreme Court recognized in EEOC

15
v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 291 (2002), the “EEOC is master of its own case” and
16
“does not stand in the employee’s shoes.”
17
B. Bifurcation of Pattern–or-Practice Claims Is Presumptively Appropriate
18

19

Rule 42(b) provides that a court may order separate trials of any separate issue “in

20 furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be “conducive to

21 expedition and economy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Bifurcating liability and relief issues is an
22 obvious use of Rule 42(b). C. Wright and A. Miller, 9 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2390
23
(2d ed. 1994). The Manual for Complex Litigation, § 33.54 (2d ed.) states that “[a]bsent
24
unusual circumstances, the trial of an employment discrimination class action should be
25

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 5 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 6 of 15

conducted in separate stages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).” (emphasis supplied). In Teamsters,
1
2 the Supreme Court endorsed bifurcating liability and relief issues in pattern-or-practice suits 3 brought under Title VII, stating:

4

The Plaintiff in a pattern-or-practice action is the Government, and its initial

burden is to demonstrate that unlawful discrimination has been a regular

5

procedure or policy followed by an employer or group of employers.

6

[Citation omitted.] At the initial, "liability" stage of a pattern-or-practice

suit the Government is not required to offer evidence that each person for

7

whom it will ultimately seek relief was a victim of the employer's

discriminatory policy. Its burden is to establish a prima facie case that such

8

a policy existed. The burden then shifts to the employer to defeat the prima

facie showing of a pattern or practice by demonstrating that the

9

government's proof is either inaccurate or insignificant. . . .

10
If an employer fails to rebut the inference that arises from the Government’s

11

prima facie case, a trial court may then conclude that a violation has

occurred and determine the appropriate remedy. Without any further

12

evidence from the Government, a court’s finding of a pattern or practice

justifies an award of prospective relief . . . .

13

. . . [T]he question of individual relief does not arise until it has been proved

14

that the employer has followed an employment policy of unlawful

discrimination. The force of that proof does not dissipate at the remedial

15

stage of the trial . . . .

When the Government seeks individual relief for the victims of the

16

discriminatory practice, a district court must usually conduct additional

proceedings after the liability phase of the trial to determine the scope of

17

individual relief . . . .

18
The proof of the pattern or practice supports an inference that any particular

19

employment decision, during the period in which the discriminatory policy

was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy. The Government need

20

only show that an alleged individual discriminatee unsuccessfully applied

21

for a job and therefore was a potential victim of proved discrimination . . . .

[T]he burden then rests on the employer to demonstrate that the individual

22

applicant was denied employment for lawful reasons.

23 Id. at 360-62. Bifurcation of liability and individual remedies issues is particularly appropriate

24 where, as here, a class of females has been injured by the same policy or course of conduct, but
25

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 6 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 7 of 15

the individual remedies differ. See, e.g., Fujita v. Sumitomo Bank of California, 70 F.R.D. 406,
1
2 411 (N.D. Cal. 1975); In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, 70 F.R.D. 23, 28 (D. Conn. 1975).

3

Moreover, bifurcated discovery is a logical corollary to a bifurcated trial. See Ellingson

4 Timber Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co., 424 F.2d 497, 499 (9th Cir. 1970)(courts have

5 authority to require separate discovery of different issues and noting one purpose of Rule 42(b)
6
“is to permit deferral of costly and possibly unnecessary discovery proceedings pending
7
resolution of potentially dispositive preliminary issues.”); 8 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R.
8
MILLER & RICHARD L. MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2040 AT 523 (2D ED.
9
10 1994); 9 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, §

11 2387 AT 472-73 (2D ED. 1994). Bifurcated discovery will help the parties conserve valuable

12 resources and enable the liability trial to proceed expeditiously. The Federal Judicial Center’s

13 Manual For Complex Litigation (Third) recommends deferral of most class member discovery

14
until after liability is established:

15

Court approval should usually be required before any discovery from class

16

members is undertaken, and the judge should limit such discovery to that

which is genuinely needed and ensure that it is not used to harass either the

17

members or the representatives of the class. . . . In some cases, limited

18

discovery from class members may be conducted before a stage I trial on

liability to the class, with the rest deferred. Each party should ordinarily be

19

permitted to depose any class member whom the other party plans to call as

a witness, and discovery may also be appropriate of a class member whose

20

employment history will be used as evidence showing the existence (or non-

21

existence) of the alleged discrimination. Whether anecdotal experiences of

individual class members are relevant at a stage I trial will depend on the

22

circumstances of the particular case. If such evidence will become relevant

at subsequent proceedings only if liability to the class is established at the

23

stage I trial, discovery from those class members may be deferred until after

the first trial.
24

25 FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (THIRD), § 33.53 AT 354 (1995).

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 7 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 8 of 15

C. Bifurcation is Especially Appropriate in the Present Case
1

2

EEOC seeks bifurcation of the trial and discovery into two separate phases, with

3 appropriate adjustments to the schedule consistent with the needs of the case and the bifurcated

4 framework. The two proposed phases are described in greater detail in the attached proposed

5 Order. Stage I consists of discovery and trial of: (a) Defendants’ liability for its pattern or
6
practice of discriminating against female applicants for sales/service positions; (b) Defendants’
7
liability for its pattern or practice of discriminating against female employees by denying them
8
training and promotions to managerial positions; and (c) certain remedial issues, such as punitive
9
10 damages, that can only be properly adjudicated by a jury that has heard all of the pattern or

11 practice liability evidence in the case. Contemplated Stage I discovery would include document

12 production; depositions of witnesses to prove or disprove the pattern or practice liability claim,

13 e.g., store, zone or district managers of Defendants, and class members whose testimony the
14
EEOC intends to present to establish pattern or practice liability, and expert and other witnesses;
15
and other liability-related evidence. 4 After the Stage I trial is concluded, all discrimination
16
liability issues and the class’ entitlement to punitive damages will be resolved.
17

18

Should the jury find liability regarding the pattern or practice claims, the Court would

19 determine appropriate class-wide injunctive remedies and Stage II discovery will commence,

20 followed by a Stage II trial or set of mini-trials. Stage II will consist of discovery and trial(s) of
21
issues pertaining to each individual class member, e.g., whether Defendant can overcome each
22
class members’ presumptive entitlement to remedies based on the jury’s Stage I pattern or
23

24

4 EEOC currently expects to present the testimony of no more than 15-30 of the anticipated failure-to-hire class

members at the pattern or practice liability stage of this case as a representative sample of Defendants’ hiring

25

practices, with the remaining class members’ testimony presented at the remedial stage.

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 8 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 9 of 15

practice liability finding and, if so, the amount of such remedies, including back pay, front pay,
1
2 and compensatory damages. Stage II discovery would include depositions of each individual 3 class member not already deposed during Stage I (the overwhelming majority of the class), other

4 witness depositions, related document discovery and other Stage II-related discovery.

5

6

b. Bifurcation of Trial and Discovery Conserve Judicial Resources and the

Parties’ Resources

7
District courts have authority to bifurcate proceedings in furtherance of convenience, to
8

avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy. See, e.g.,
9

10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). A court must consider four factors: convenience, prejudice, expedition and

11 economy, and the interests of justice. See, e.g., 9 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER,

12 FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2388 AT 479 (2D ED. 1994). Bifurcation of trial and
13 discovery is justified in this case based on the framework for adjudicating pattern or practice
14
cases, the size and scope of this case, and the factors identified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
15
Courts have frequently ordered the bifurcation of pattern or practice employment
16
discrimination cases because of the significant savings of judicial and litigant time and resources,
17
18 and the efficiency which results from the procedure. Liability can usually be determined in a

19 reasonable period of time through a manageable trial. “The focus of the stage I trial, whether to

20 the court or the jury, will frequently be on statistical evidence and expert testimony.” Id. at 356.
21
Although individual fact witness testimony is used to bring “the cold numbers convincingly to
22
life,” such testimony ordinarily involves far fewer witnesses than the number to be expected in
23
the second stage of pattern or practice proceedings. See Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 339. Liability
24
25 can be decided based on the testimony of a few expert witnesses and a manageable number of

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 9 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 10 of 15

anecdotal witnesses. If no liability is found, then there is no need for the remedial phase of the
1
2 trial and the very large number of witnesses that the remedial phase would require. If there is a 3 finding of liability, settlement is reached in most cases without the need for a Stage II trial. At

4 present, the EEOC anticipates that presentation of individual remedial evidence at Stage II would
5 likely require in excess of ten weeks of trial time based on the expected number of class
6 members.5 The jury’s deliberations would also be quite lengthy. Thus, bifurcation of the trial
7
offers the potential of substantial time and other resource savings.
8
Moreover, the same efficiency considerations also favor bifurcation of discovery.
9
10 Deferring a second period of discovery about remedial issues until after the Stage I trial may

11 conserve valuable judicial resources and those of the parties if: (a) the stage II discovery is

12 precluded by a finding of no liability; or (b) a stage I liability finding may encourage the parties
13 to settle. The evidence regarding Defendants’ liability is largely unrelated to that concerning
14
back pay, and compensatory damages for individual class members.6 Although the EEOC
15

16

17 5 The EEOC did not have Defendants’ applicant flow or personnel data back in September 2006 when the parties

filed their first joint status report. EEOC’s revised estimate of the trial length is based in large part on Defendants’

18 revelation of significantly more applicants in November 2007 (about 30,000 Unicru applicants, which the EEOC

was only recently able to convert to a useable format) and as recently as April 25, 2008 (another 13,500 applicants).

19 6 However, the evidence establishing liability and that relevant to assessment of punitive damages - such as

evidence showing malice or reckless disregard for federal rights and the reprehensibility of the discriminatory

20 conduct at issue - is inextricably intertwined such that trial of the punitive damages issue during Stage II proceedings would result in duplicative presentation of voluminous evidence to separate juries. Accordingly, the

21 EEOC proposes trial of Defendants’ liability for punitive damages and assessment of the class-wide amount of such damages during Stage I proceedings. See proposed Order regarding Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion To Bifurcate Trial And

22

Discovery at 4. Courts have repeatedly recognized the need for class-wide adjudication of punitive damages to

avoid the legal and resource problems associated with presentation of largely duplicative evidence to multiple fact-

23

finders. See, e.g., Buchanan v. Consolidated Stores Corp., 217 F.R.D. 178, 188-89 (D. Md. 2003)(Chasanow, J.);

Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 780-81 (9th Cir. 1996); Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 109 F.R.D. 269,

24

280-82 (E.D. Tex. 1985), aff’d, 782 F.2d 468 (5th Cir.1986); In re Shell Oil Refinery, 136 F.R.D. 588, 593-95 (E.D. La. 1991), aff’d, 979 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1992); EEOC v. Dial Corp., 259 F. Supp.2d 710, 712-15 (N.D. Ill. 2003).

The Court would apportion any punitive damages award among the class members at the conclusion of Stage II

25

proceedings, taking into account the degree of actual harm suffered by each class member and the statutory damages

cap set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)((D).

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

Page 10 of 15

OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION Seattle Field Office

909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911

TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 11 of 15

presently anticipates that perhaps 15-30 of its class members will likely be among its Stage I
1
2 liability witnesses (whose testimony will then also be presented to support their individual 3 remedy claims during Stage II proceedings), this number will be far smaller than the putative

4 class which could approach 1,800 individuals.

5

C Bifurcation Ensures Just Adjudication of the Liability Determination

6

While Preventing Jury Confusion

7

Another consideration when deciding whether to bifurcate proceedings is whether

8 separate proceedings are more likely to produce a just result. See, e.g., 9 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT
9 & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2388 AT 482 (2D ED. 1994)(citing
10
cases). Bifurcation of this case will allow for a streamlined trial on the issue of liability alone.
11
In that trial, the EEOC’s burden will be “to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that . . .
12
discrimination was the company's standard operating procedure -- the regular rather than the
13
14 unusual practice.” Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 336. The EEOC will proffer statistical evidence and

15 related expert testimony, the testimony of Defendants' current and former staff, testimony of a

16 limited number of female class members (for both the EEOC’s failure to hire and failure to train

17 and promote claims), documentary and other evidence. The burden will then shift to the

18
Defendants “to defeat the prima facie showing of a pattern or practice by demonstrating that the
19
Government's proof is either inaccurate or insignificant.” Id.
20

21

The trial of pattern or practice liability described above should not be complicated by

22 testimony and legal instructions regarding issues pertinent only to individual class members. An

23 omnibus trial on both liability and relief is likely result in a long and cumbersome proceeding for

24 the parties, the Court and the jury given the amount of trial time required. The EEOC estimates

25
that a trial of all liability and individual remedial issues would exceed three months.

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 11 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 12 of 15

Equally important, bifurcation will minimize the likelihood of jury confusion. Otherwise,
1
2 a jury must simultaneously apply instructions regarding the burden shifting framework of 3 Teamsters while also evaluating liability evidence and a host of individual issues pertaining to

4 back pay, mitigation of damages, timing of applications and other individual circumstances

5 regarding several hundred class members. The potential for such error in the absence of
6
bifurcation is significant. Conversely, bifurcation allows for a second stage proceeding that is
7
relatively uncluttered by proof supporting pattern or practice liability. Bifurcation under Rule
8
42(b) would help to minimize jury confusion in this regard. Bifurcation, therefore, will more
9
10 likely produce a just result.

11 III. The Proposed Schedule

12

The EEOC has attached a proposed Order to the instant motion regarding bifurcation and

13 scheduling, which provides for bifurcation of both the trial and discovery in this action and sets
14
forth a new schedule for discovery regarding Stage I proceedings.
15

16
CONCLUSION
17

18

For the reasons set forth above, the EEOC respectfully requests that the Court enter the

19 proposed Order Regarding Bifurcation and Scheduling.

20
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
21
DATED this 25th day of September, 2008.
22

23 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO 24 REGIONAL ATTORNEY

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel

25 JOHN F. STANLEY SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 12 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 13 of 15

1 DAMIEN A. LEE 2 SR. TRIAL ATTORNEY
3 LISA A. COX SR. TRIAL ATTORNEY
4
BY: /s/ Damien A. Lee 5 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 6 COMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 7 909 First Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98104 8 Telephone (206) 220-6896
Facsimile (206) 220-6911 9 john.stanley@eeoc.gov
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel JEFFREY C. BANNON Assistant General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel 1801 “L” Street NW Washington, D.C. 20507

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 13 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 14 of 15

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
4

5

I hereby certify that on September 25, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing “Plaintiff

6
EEOC’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery” with the Clerk of the Court using the
7
CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following individuals listed
8
below:
9

10

Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth (via E-mail)

Charles N. Eberhardt

11

PERKINS COIE LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800

12

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com
13

Kenneth Diamond (via E-mail) Winterbauer & Diamond 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1910 Seattle, WA 98101 ken@winterbauer.com

14

Attorneys for Defendant

15

Warren E. Martin (via E-mail)

Lynn L. Ellsworth

16

GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, PETERSTON & DAHEIM LLP

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2100

17

Post Office Box 1157

18

Tacoma, WA 98401-1151

martw@gth-law.com

19

lellsworth@gth-law.com

20

Attorney for Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange and Magen Morris

21
by the following indicated method:

22

• by e-mailing a copy thereof in a pdf format to the attorney(s) listed

23

above on the date set forth below.

24

25

DATED this 25th day of September, 2008.

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 14 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 73 Filed 09/25/08 Page 15 of 15

1

2

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

3

/s/ Damien A. Lee

4

Damien A. Lee

5

Senior Trial Attorney

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

EEOC’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY Page 15 of 15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 106 Filed 11/10/08 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10 JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGAN MORRIS, on

11

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF OREGON, 15 INC., et al.,

16

Defendants.

__________________________________________

17

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 18 COMMISSION,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,
22
Defendants. 23

CASE NO. C06-045RSM ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

24

25

This matter is now before the Court for consideration of four pending motions: defendants’

26 motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. # 72), the individual plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the

27 complaint (Dkt. # 77), plaintiff EEOC’s motion for bifurcation of trial and discovery (Dkt. # 73), and

28 ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - 1

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 106 Filed 11/10/08 Page 2 of 4

1 defendants’ motion to sever the individual plaintiffs’ claims from the EEOC’s claims (Dkt. # 75). The

2 Court has fully considered these motions and associated memoranda and exhibits, and deems oral

3 argument unnecessary. As set forth below, the Court shall grant the individual plaintiffs’ motion for leave

4 to amend, deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot, grant in part the motion to bifurcate

5 trial and discovery, and deny the motion to sever.

6

7

BACKGROUND

8

Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange and Magan Morris initiated this action on January 11, 2006, by filing a

9 class action complaint against Les Schwab Tire Centers in seven western states. Dkt. # 1. Defendants

10 responded with a motion to dismiss, and the parties then stipulated to strike that motion and allow

11 plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, naming only the Les Schwab Tire Centers in Washington and

12 Oregon. Dkt. ## 15, 18. At the same time, the case was consolidated with one filed against Les Schwab

13 Tire Centers by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Dkt. # 18. Plaintiffs’ first

14 amended complaint was filed July 18, 2006, and the EEOC’s complaint, asserting claims under Title VII,

15 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, was filed on August 1, 2006.1 After their motion for class certification was denied

16 as untimely (Dkt. # 62), the individual plaintiffs moved to dismiss the Oregon defendants from their

17 complaint, and that motion was granted. Dkt. ## 65, 70. Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class

18 certification and the motion was again denied. Dkt. ## 66, 71. The four motions now before the Court

19 followed.

20

DISCUSSION

21

(1) Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. # 77)

22

The two individual plaintiffs move for leave to file a second amended complaint which will (1)

23 remove references to, and claims against, the Oregon defendants which have been dismissed from this

24 action; (2) add language to Claims VII and VIII to clarify that defendants’ alleged conduct violates Title

25 VII; (3) amend Claim VIII to delete allegations of violation of the Washington Law Against

26
1The EEOC amended complaint requests injunctive relief and damages in the form of back pay for 27 the two named plaintiffs and “similarly situated individuals”.

28 ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - 2

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 106 Filed 11/10/08 Page 3 of 4

1 Discrimination (RCW 49.60) through a disparate impact on plaintiffs’ class; and (4) amend the original

2 Claim X (renumbered as Claim IX due to deletion of a claim against the Oregon defendants) to include a

3 claim of failure to promote in the individual plaintiffs’ claims under RCW 49.60. Dkt. # 77-2.

4

Defendants have opposed the amendments, noting in particular that nearly three years have passed

5 since the original complaint was filed, and the discovery deadline is approaching. However,

6 the Court finds that these proposed amendments conform to a theory of the case that has been known to

7 defendants since the original EEOC charge was filed—namely that plaintiffs contend they were excluded

8 from promotion due to their gender. The time that has passed since the filing of the original complaint is

9 largely due to the complicated posture of the case, involving as it does both the two individual plaintiffs

10 and the EEOC. There has been no bad faith on the part of plaintiffs in withholding claims. Further, any

11 prejudice to defendants from the approaching discovery deadline may be mitigated by extension of that

12 deadline.

13

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED.

14 Plaintiffs shall promptly file their second amended complaint. The discovery deadline, along with other

15 pretrial and trial dates, shall be extended as set forth below.

16

(2) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. # 72)

17

Defendants assert that they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to the “pattern and

18 practice” of discrimination asserted in plaintiffs’ Claim VIII. However, plaintiffs’ second amended

19 complaint deletes this claim, thus rendering defendants’ motion moot. This motion is accordingly

20 DENIED.

21

(3) Motion to Sever Claims (Dkt. # 75)

22

In this motion, defendants request that the Court sever the individual plaintiffs’ claims from those

23 of the EEOC. All plaintiffs have opposed the motion. The Court notes that defendants previously joined

24 plaintiffs in stipulating to consolidation of the two cases. Dkt. # 16. Their arguments regarding Rule

25 20(a) and the lack of common questions of fact and law are therefore unavailing. Defendants’ motion is

26 accordingly DENIED.

27

28 ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - 3

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 106 Filed 11/10/08 Page 4 of 4

1

(4) Motion to Bifurcate (Dkt. # 73)

2

Plaintiff EEOC asks the Court to bifurcate both the trial and discovery in this case into two

3 stages, the first directed toward liability, punitive damages, and affirmative defenses, and a second toward

4 remedial issues. Defendants do not oppose bifurcation in principle, but contend that the motion is

5 premature, in light of the other pending motions. Defendants also assert that if the case is bifurcated, the

6 Court should not adopt plaintiffs’ schedule, but rather should direct the parties to “develop a realistic,

7 mutually acceptable trial plan.” Dkt. # 81, p. 2.

8

The Court notes that the other pending motions have been decided, so this motion to bifurcate the

9 trial and discovery is no longer premature. The Court further finds that such bifurcation, as proposed by

10 plaintiff EEOC, is appropriate. However, rather than adopt plaintiff’s proposed schedule, the Court shall

11 direct the parties to confer and develop, if possible an agreed scheduling plan.

12

Accordingly, plaintiff EEOC’s motion to bifurcate both trial and discovery into two stages is

13 GRANTED IN PART. Trial of this matter shall proceed in two stages. Stage I shall cover liability and

14 punitive damage issues, subject to defendants’ affirmative defenses, and shall include the claims of the

15 individual plaintiffs. If liability is found, Stage II will determine remedial issues for persons found

16 aggrieved in State I. Discovery shall be similarly bifurcated.

17

This matter shall remain on the Court’s calendar for trial of Stage I as presently scheduled, for

18 May 18, 2009. The parties shall confer in an effort to develop a joint proposal for a pretrial schedule for

19 Stage I, consistent with that date if possible. In the event they cannot agree on a schedule, they may file a

20 revised joint status report, using the format previously indicated and setting forth their respective

21 positions. The parties shall file either the joint proposed trial schedule, or a joint status report, within two

22 weeks of the date of this Order.

23

Dated this _10_ day of November, 2008.

24

A

25

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26

27

28 ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - 4

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

AT SEATTLE

8

9

JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGAN MORRIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

10 situated,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF OREGON, INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

CASE NO. C06-045RSM
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIALS

16 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
17 Plaintiff,
18 v.
19 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF
20 WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,

21

Defendants.

22

23

This matter is now before the Court for consideration of defendants’ motion for separate trials,

24 Dkt. # 204. Defendants contend that, in the event the Court grants defendants’ motion for summary

25 judgment on plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)’s promotion claims, the

26 matter should be set for separate trials on the claims of the two individuals (which include state law

27

28 ORDER - 1

1 claims), and the EEOC’s “pattern or practice” hiring claims. Dkt. # 204, p. 2. Plaintiffs, including both

2 the two individual plaintiffs and the EEOC, have opposed the motion, contending that it is speculative

3 as to the Court’s ruling on the pending motions for partial summary judgment, and that it improperly

4 renews a motion to sever claims which the Court has already denied. Dkt. # 160.

5

The Court has granted one of the motions for partial summary judgment dismissing the EEOC’s

6 promotion claims. The Court has also had an opportunity to review some of the evidence that will be

7 offered at trial, filed in support of and in opposition to the summary judgment motions. The Court now

8 finds that it is in the interest of justice, and will best avoid juror confusion, to grant the motion and

9 order separate trials. The Court further finds that defendants’ motion does not improperly renew the

10 earlier, denied motion to sever claims. That motion was decided solely on the basis of defendants’

11 earlier joinder in consolidating the two cases. Dkt. # 160, p. 3. As noted, now that the Court has had the

12 opportunity to view some of the evidence and arguments that will be offered at trial, it finds that the best

13 approach is to try the plaintiffs’ cases separately.

14

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for separate trials (Dkt. # 204) is GRANTED. The two

15 individual plaintiffs, Jennifer Strange and Magan Morris, shall proceed to trial on their claims on the

16 September 14, 2009 date now set for trial. The Pretrial Order shall be due on Tuesday, September 8,

17 2009. Counsel shall appear for a pretrial conference in chambers on Wednesday, September 9 at 2:00

18 p.m.. Proposed jury instructions, voir dire, trial briefs, and trial exhibits shall be due September 9 as

19 currently set.

20

Trial on the EEOC’s hiring claim shall be continued to November 2, 2009. The Pretrial Order

21 shall be due October 23, 2009. Proposed jury instructions, voir dire, trial briefs, and trial exhibits shall

22 be due October 27, 2009. The pretrial conference shall be set at a later time.

23

24

Dated this 3rd day of September, 2009.

25

A

26

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27

28 ORDER - 2

 
 1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6

AT SEATTLE

7

8

JENNIFER STRANGE, MAGAN MORRIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

9 situated,

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF OREGON, INC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

CASE NO. C06-045RSM
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

15 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
16 Plaintiff,
17 v.
18 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF
19 WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,

20

Defendants.

21

22

This matter is now before the Court for consideration of defendants’ two motions1 for partial

23 summary judgment on the individual claims of plaintiffs Jennifer Strange and Magan Morris. Dkt. ##

24 160, 163. Both plaintiffs have opposed the motions. The Court deems oral argument on these motions

25 unnecessary and, for the reasons set forth below, shall deny both motions.

26

27

1The filing of multiple motions for summary judgment is strongly discouraged. Local Rule CR

28 7(e)(3).

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

1

BACKGROUND

2

The facts are well known to the parties and need only be briefly set forth here. Plaintiffs Jennifer

3 Strange and Magan Morris both worked at various Les Schwab Tire Centers in Washington State in the

4 “Sales and Administration” position, which involves sales, bookkeeping, and other clerical duties.

5 Their Second Amended Complaint alleges, in essence, that defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of

6 Washington, Inc. (“Les Schwab Washington”) unlawfully discriminated against them by denying them

7 promotions to managerial positions. Les Schwab Washington is a “promote from within” company, and

8 promotes managers only from the “Sales and Service” position, which involves installation of tires on

9 automobiles, trucks, and heavy equipment. As defendant states in the motion for summary judgment,

10 Sales and Service employees are “overwhelmingly male” and Sales and Administration employees are

11 “overwhelmingly female.” Dkt. # 16, p. 4; Dkt. # 163, p. 4. The result, according to plaintiffs, is that

12 women are not promoted to managers. “To date, there has never been a female manager of any Les

13 Schwab Tire Center retail store.” Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. # 113, ¶ 4.3.

14

Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise under both state and federal law. Under Title VII of the Civil

15 Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., they assert claims of unlawful retaliation and

16 constructive discharge. Id., ¶¶ 6.2 - 6.5; 7.2 - 7.5. They also assert that defendant engaged in a pattern

17 and practice of intentional discrimination in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination,

18 RCW 49.60, together with individual claims of failure to promote, failure to train, retaliation and

19 constructive discharge under state law. Id. ¶¶ 8.4 - 8.5; 9.2 - 9.8. The Court has supplemental

20 jurisdiction over these state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

21

DISCUSSION

22

I. Summary Judgment Standard

23

Summary judgment should be rendered “if the pleadings, discovery and disclosure material on

24 file, and any affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is

25 entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). An issue is “genuine” if “a reasonable

26 jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” and a fact is material if it “might affect the outcome

27 of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The

28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

1 evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. “[S]ummary judgment

2 should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could

3 return a verdict in its favor.” Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F. 3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995).

4 It should also be granted where there is a “complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of

5 the non-moving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “The mere existence

6 of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party’s position is not sufficient” to prevent

7 summary judgment. Triton Energy Corp., 68 F. 3d at 1221.

8

II. Jennifer Strange’s Claims

9

Ms. Strange began working in her parents’ tire store, Gilbert’s Tires in Puyallup, Washington, in

10 1997. Gilbert’s sold Les Schwab tires and was permitted to use the Les Schwab name, but was

11 independently owned. Ms. Strange started working behind the counter, greeting customers, answering

12 the telephone, and writing up orders. She also learned to work in the tire bays, changing and repairing

13 tires and operating the equipment. Declaration of Jennifer Strange, Dkt. # 190, ¶ 3. She became

14 Assistant Manager at Gilbert’s in 2001. Id. The following year, in 2002, her parents sold the tire store

15 to Les Schwab of Washington. In December 2002, employees of Gilbert’s Tires were asked to fill out

16 applications if they wanted to be considered for continued employment with Les Schwab. Ms. Strange

17 submitted an application for the Assistant Manager position but believes that it was destroyed.

18 Declaration of Jennifer Strange, Dkt. # 190, ¶ 4. She alleges that the new store manager, Mark Witham,

19 told her that “no woman would ever make that kind of money in a Les Schwab Tire Store,” and that she

20 needed to submit a new application for the Sales and Administration position. Id. She did so and began

21 working in that capacity when the store opened as a Les Schwab store on January 1, 2003.

22

In March 2003, after receiving very good marks on her performance evaluation, Ms. Strange

23 asked Mr. Witham how she could work toward becoming an Assistant Manager. Mr. Witham responded

24 that there was no higher position in the company for a “gal” than what she currently held. Id., ¶ 6.

25 About a year later, in April 2004, Ms. Strange saw a posting for “third man” training for employees

26 wishing to move into management. Id., ¶ 10. She called the training department in Prineville, Oregon

27 to ask about attending the training. She was told that this was a “third man” class and was asked which

28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

1 of the “guys” from the store would be attending. Id. When Ms. Strange responded that it was she who

2 wanted to attend, Darla in the training office responded that the class was for “guys” and that “gals” do

3 not go to the “third man” training classes. Id. Ms. Strange was then directed to talk to her manager

4 about attending the class. Id. When Ms. Strange then asked Mr. Witham about attending, his response

5 was that she was a “bookkeeper” and there were no training openings for a bookkeeper nor “third man”

6 training positions for “gals.” Id., ¶ 11. Subsequently, Ms. Strange spoke with an assistant manager at a

7 nearby store to ask if she could be considered for a management position there. Id., ¶ 13. The response

8 of the Assistant Manager, Jessie Horton, was that he would like to have her working at his store, but

9 only as a Sales and Administration employee; he could not have a woman working in the tire bays.

10 When specifically asked about a managerial position, Mr. Horton’s response was, “What are the first

11 three letters of manager?” Id.

12

Ms. Strange filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity

13 Commission (“EEOC”) on October 20, 2004. Declaration of Kenneth Diamond, Dkt. # 165, Exhibit F.

14 She alleged that she was denied promotion and training opportunities on account of her sex. Id. In

15 November of 2004, after learning of the EEOC charges, defendant offered plaintiff a position in Sales

16 and Service at a nearby store in Spanaway, Washington. Id., Exhibit H. Ms. Strange declined the offer,

17 believing that it was not “bona fide” and that she would face a hostile environment in the new store.

18 Declaration of Jennifer Strange, Dkt. # 190, ¶¶ 34-39.

19

Following the filing of charges, Ms. Strange experienced what she believes to be retaliatory

20 treatment from her manager Mr. Witham and others. She asserts, among other allegations, that her job

21 duties and work hours changed, she was given odd break and mealtimes, she started receiving crank

22 calls on her home phone and cell phone, and certain administrative duties were taken away from her.

23 Id., ¶ 24. She was threatened with disciplinary action for leaving work early one day in November,

24 when in fact she was working a split shift and actually left late because her replacement did not arrive

25 on time. Id., ¶ 25.

26

As a result of these and other experiences, Ms. Strange filed a second EEOC charge in December

27 2004, this time alleging retaliation for filing the prior charge. Declaration of Kenneth Diamond, Dkt. #

28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4

1 165, Exhibit I. Ms. Strange then requested and was granted leave under the Family and Medical Leave

2 Act (“FMLA”) for twelve weeks, until March14, 2005, due to physical symptoms she was experiencing

3 from her job situation. Declaration of Jennifer Strange, Dkt. # 190, ¶ 29. Within one week of returning

4 to work, she asserts that Mr. Witham informed her that she no longer needed to dress nicely because she

5 was being demoted to a janitorial position and would no longer work in Sales and Administration; a new

6 person would take over her hours. Id., ¶ 30. Ms. Strange felt she was being forced to resign, and left

7 the store. Id., ¶ 31. On March 23, 2005, she amended her EEOC charge to include a claim of

8 constructive discharge. The retaliation and constructive discharge claims are the basis of her Title VII

9 suit.

10

Defendant disputes various assertions made in plaintiff’s factual recitation. In moving for

11 summary judgment, however, defendant contends that even if the facts are viewed in the light most

12 favorable to plaintiff, her claims fail as a matter of law.

13

With respect to the state law claim of failure to promote, defendant argues that this claim is

14 barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in RCW 49.60. Defendant argues that Ms.

15 Strange alleges she applied for and was denied the Assistant Manager position when Gilbert’s Tire was

16 bought out and opened as a Les Schwab store on January 1, 2003, but the lawsuit was not filed until

17 January 11, 2006, ten days over the three-year statute of limitations. In making this argument, defendant

18 has disregarded the subsequent requests for promotion and training detailed by Ms. Strange in her

19 declaration, as set forth above. These are not time-barred and there is no basis for summary judgment as

20 to any promotion requests subsequent to January 11, 2003.

21

Defendant also contends that the promotion claim fails because Ms. Strange was not eligible to

22 be an Assistant Manager under the company-wide policy that promotions are made only from the Sales

23 and Service position, and Ms. Strange never requested transfer to such position so that she could be

24 promoted. In opposition to summary judgment, Ms. Strange states that in response to her repeated

25 requests for promotion or training opportunities, Mr. Witham never told her she needed to transfer to a

26 Sales and Service position first, to be eligible for promotion. Declaration of Jennifer Strange, Dkt. #

27 190, ¶ 14. Instead, she was simply told that no “gal” could hold a position in management. Id.

28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5

1 Similarly, she was told by Jessie Horton that he could not have a woman working in the tire bay (in

2 Sales and Service), and that only men could be in management. Id., ¶ 15. And when she attempted to

3 apply directly for “third man” training in Prineville, she was told that was only for men. Id., ¶ 10.

4 These statements create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether plaintiff was denied opportunities to

5 train and qualify for management. A reasonable juror could find from these facts, when viewed in the

6 light most favorable to plaintiff, that the managers’ failure to advise her of the need to transfer to a Sales

7 and Service position was intentional, so that she would not be eligible for promotion.

8

Finally, defendant argues that plaintiff’s promotion claim is foreclosed by her failure to accept a

9 position in Sales and Service when it was offered, after she filed her first EEOC charge. However, Ms.

10 Strange has set forth in her declaration her reasons for rejecting the offer. The reasonableness of

11 defendant’s job offer and of plaintiff’s reluctance to accept both present questions for the jury to resolve.

12 Summary judgment is accordingly DENIED as to Ms. Strange’s state law promotion claim.

13

Defendant argues that plaintiff’s retaliation claim, which is brought under both Title VII and

14 state law, fails as a matter of law because she did not suffer any adverse employment action. In order to

15 establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation under Title VII, plaintiff must demonstrate that she

16 engaged in protected activity (such as filing an EEOC charge), the employer imposed some cognizable

17 adverse action, and there was a causal connection between the two—that is, the employer had a

18 retaliatory motive. Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hospital, Inc., 726 F. 2d 1346, 1354 (9th Cir. 1984). The

19 standard is the same under Washington state law. Delahunty v. Cahooh, 66 Wash. App. 829, 840-41

20 (1992).

21

The Supreme Court recently addressed the severity of conduct necessary to constitute adverse

22 employment action, stating that “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the

23 challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a

24 reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington Northern &

25 Santa Fe Railway Co. V. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006). The standard is an objective one, and a claim

26 of retaliation must be analyzed in the full context of the facts of the case. Id. This is a broader standard

27 than that applied to a Title VII discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-2(a), where an

28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6

1 adverse action is one that “materially affect[s] the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of the

2 [plaintiff's] employment.” Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 1115, 1126 (9th

3 Cir.2000). Even under the latter standard, courts of this circuit have found adverse employment action

4 where employees were given different or more burdensome work responsibilities. See Kortan v. Cal.

5 Youth Authority., 217 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376

6 (9th Cir.1987) (“Transfers of job duties and undeserved performance ratings, if proven, would constitute

7 ‘adverse employment decisions.’ ”); Granville v. City of Portland, 2005 WL 1113841, at * 7 (D.Or.

8 May 10, 2005) (holding that a modification of plaintiff's job duties by removing tasks was an adverse

9 employment action). On the other hand, harsh words or mere threats are insufficient to establish an

10 adverse employment action, unless accompanied by more tangible actions affecting the employee’s

11 interests. See Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867, 875 (9th Cir.1998).

12

Ms. Strange has alleged that immediately after she filed her first EEOC charge, her manager

13 began speaking to her harshly, she was given odd break and meal times, her telephone number was

14 distributed to other employees and she began receiving crank and “hang-up” calls, and certain job duties

15 were taken away from her. Declaration of Jennifer Strange, Dkt. # 190, ¶ 24. She overheard other

16 managers laughing about the EEOC charge she had filed. Id., ¶ 21. Further, she was twice threatened

17 with disciplinary action for actions that she did not in fact take. Id., ¶¶ 24-27. Defendant has addressed

18 the job duty, work hours, and manager’s demeanor in the reply brief, but nowhere has defendant

19 explained, defended, or even addressed the threats of disciplinary action. Defendant’s Reply, Dkt. #

20 214, pp. 8-9. As to differences between Ms. Strange’s declaration and her deposition testimony to

21 which defendant has pointed, any such discrepancies go to her credibility and may be explored at trial,

22 but they do not preclude summary judgment.

23

While no single one of these actions alleged by Ms. Strange might constitute an adverse

24 employment action, the Supreme Court has instructed that they are to be viewed together, in the full

25 context of the facts of the case. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. V. White, 548 U.S. at 68.

26 (2008). A juror, viewing these actions in context from an objective point of view, could reasonably

27 find an adverse employment action.

28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7

1

As for the third prong of the prima facie case, causation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has

2 noted that timing alone can satisfy the causal connection element. Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co.,

3 350 F. 3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has alleged that these actions began shortly after she

4 filed her first EEOC complaint. It remains for the jury to determine whether this proximity is sufficient

5 to satisfy the causation element. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim is

6 accordingly DENIED.

7

Finally, defendant contends that Ms. Strange’s constructive discharge claim should be dismissed

8 because she voluntarily left her job. However, while resignations are presumed to be voluntary, a

9 plaintiff may overcome that presumption under Washington state law by demonstrating a deliberate act

10 by the employer that made her working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would have

11 felt compelled to resign. Washington v. Boeing, 105 Wash. App. 1, 15 (2000). The standard is similar

12 under Title VII, where a plaintiff “must show that the abusive working environment became so

13 intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response.” Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542

14 U.S. 129, 133 (2004).

15

Plaintiff has set forth in her declaration the facts which led to her belief that her working

16 conditions had become intolerable, and that she was being forced to resign. These include the facts

17 supporting her claim of retaliation, together with two events that occurred within a week after her return

18 from FMLA leave: she was told by Mr. Witham that she would be doing janitorial work, and she was

19 told another employee was coming on, whom plaintiff believed was intended to replace her. Declaration

20 of Jennifer Strange, Dkt. # 190, ¶¶ 30-31. Defendant suggests that the janitorial duty was related to an

21 upcoming “image contest” which required that the store be cleaned and repainted, and that for all

22 plaintiff knew, Mr. Witham “was kidding her because she would be helping to clean the store for one

23 day for the image contest.” Defendant’s Reply, Dkt. # 214, p. 10. However, what plaintiff knew or did

24 not know about the image contest and whether Mr. Witham was “kidding” are matters that should be

25 determined by the jury. The Court cannot say, as a matter of law, that plaintiff has not adequately

26 demonstrated that her working conditions had become intolerable.

27

28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 8

1

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is accordingly DENIED as to Ms. Strange’s

2 constructive discharge claim.

3

III. Motion to Strike

4

The motion to strike presented in defendant’s Reply to the motion for summary judgment

5 regarding the claims of Jennifer Strange (Dkt. # 214) is DENIED.

6

IV. Magan Morris’ Claims

7

Magan Morris began working part-time in the Sales and Administrative position in the Les

8 Schwab Tacoma Pacific store in 1999, while she was a senior in high school. The following year she

9 applied for and was hired in a “field bankruptcy” position, where she collected unpaid debts and

10 represented Les Schwab at bankruptcy proceedings. When this position was eliminated after several

11 months, Ms. Morris was hired as a Sales and Administrative employee at the Bellevue store. After

12 working there for about six months, she left and took a Sales and Administrative position at a store in

13 Portland, Oregon. In June 2002, she was hired at Gilbert’s Tires in Puyallup, where she met Jennifer

14 Strange. When the store became a Les Schwab store in 2003, there was only one Sales and

15 Administrative position available, and Jennifer Strange was hired in that capacity. Ms. Morris, through

16 zone manager Steve Vonderau, located a Sales and Administrative position at the SeaTac store, and she

17 began working there.

18

In September 2003, Doug Mowbray, whom Ms. Morris knew from the Tacoma Pacific store,

19 became Manager at the Sea-Tac store. Ms. Morris states that she asked him “if I could work or have

20 training in the sales and service position so that I could move forward towards a higher position, namely

21 Assistant manager.” Declaration of Magan Morris, Dkt. # 193, ¶ 4. Mr. Mowbray responded that this

22 “wasn’t an option” because Ms. Morris was supposed to “train the guys . . . so that they could move

23 forward.” Id. Following this response, Ms. Morris joined Jennifer Strange in filing an EEOC charge

24 of discrimination on October 2004.2 Declaration of Kenneth Diamond, Dkt. # 162, Exhibit K.

25

In her declaration, Ms. Morris states that Mr. Mowbray’s response was the second time she had

26

27

2Both Ms. Strange and Ms. Morris have in their declarations incorrectly given the date of the first EEOC charge as October 20, 2005. See, Dkt. # 190, ¶ 19; Dkt. # 193, ¶ 10. The correct date is

28 reflected in the exhibits filed with defense counsel’s declaration.

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 9

1 been told that promotion was “not an option” for her. Id., ¶ 6. She does not specify where or when this

2 first request was made, but argues in her opposition to summary judgment that the first promotion

3 request was made while she was working at the Tacoma Pacific store, which would have been in 1999.

4 Plaintiff’s Opposition, Dkt. # 192, p. 3 at n.1. Defendant contends that Ms. Morris’ declaration is

5 incomplete, in that the full statement of Mr. Mowbray was that training in the tire bays was “not an

6 option at this time,” and that her declaration fails in other respects to align with her statements at

7 deposition. These are matters that can be explored on cross-examination; they are not bases for

8 dismissal of the promotion claim. Defendant also asserts that claims based on the 1999 event are time-

9 barred. However, to the extent that events in 1999 serve as background for Ms. Morris’ belief that she

10 suffered discrimination when she heard the same response in 2003, there is no time bar.

11

Defendant contends that Ms. Morris cannot make a prima facie case of discrimination on her

12 promotion claim because

13

in her four years with Les Schwab, she asked one store manager (Mowbray) one time

(although she cannot recall when) about obtaining “further training in the bays and the

14

alignment and brakes side of it” and was told it was “not an option at this time.”

15 Defendant’s Motion, Dkt. # 160, p. 14. This summary mischaracterizes Ms. Morris’ testimony. When
16 the facts in her declaration are viewed in the light favorable to her, they show that she made two
17 requests several years apart, that she was told each time that training in tire service so that she could
18 “move forward” was “not an option,” and that she understood that to mean that work in Sales and
19 Service and training for promotion were not an option for a woman. Declaration of Magan Morris, Dkt.
20 # 193, ¶¶ 3-7. The reasonableness of her belief, and her conclusion that it was futile to press further for
21 training and promotion, are determinations to be made by the jury.
22 Defendant also contends that summary judgment is appropriate on Ms. Morris’ promotion claim
23 because she declined a position in Sales and Service when it was offered to her after she joined Ms.
24 Strange in filing an EEOC complaint. However, as stated with respect to the same offer made to Ms.
25 Strange, the reasonableness of defendant’s Sales and Service job offer, and of plaintiff’s reluctance to
26 accept it, present questions for the jury to resolve. Summary judgment is accordingly DENIED as to
27 Ms. Morris’ state law promotion claim.
28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10

1

Ms. Morris, like Ms. Strange, alleges that she experienced retaliatory conduct after she filed her

2 October 2004 EEOC charge. She states that she was called into Mr. Mowbray’s office and subjected to

3 verbal criticism, despite the fact that she had, just prior to filing the charge, been given an “exceeds

4 requirements” on her performance evaluation. Declaration of Magan Morris, Dkt. # 193, ¶ 13. Her

5 work schedule was changed, she was denied a particular Saturday off, and her parking location was

6 changed to an unlighted, undesirable location. Id., ¶¶ 14 - 15. The most significant act of retaliation, in

7 her view, occurred on Saturday, December 4, 2004,3 when

8

a Sales and Service employee said in front of me, most of the entire crew and the Assistant

manager, that I was nothing but a secretary. He then corrected himself

9

and said, “oh, I am sorry, I meant bookkeeper” and then said, “because secretaries

have sex with their bosses.” This employee continued by asking the Assistant

10

Manager, “So Kurt, have you hit that shit yet?” Kurt laughed and responded,

11

“No way” and then walked off.

12 Id., ¶ 16. When Ms. Morris brought this incident to the attention of the manager Mr. Mowbray on the

13 following Monday, his response was to bring Ms. Morris into his office and make her repeat the

14 offending statement in front of Mr. Klein, the employee who made the remark, and another Sales and

15 Service employee, also male. Id., ¶ 17. Although the employee and Assistant Manager Klein were both

16 reprimanded for their conduct, Ms. Morris felt that being forced to repeat the remarks in front of four

17 men, two of whom were involved in the incident, was humiliating and further indication of retaliation.

18 Id.

19

Defendant moves for summary judgment on Ms. Morris retaliation claim by arguing that these

20 events do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action. The Court agrees that some of the

21 actions alleged by Ms. Morris, such as the change in parking spot, change in working hours, and the

22 denial of a particular day off, may be trivial and not necessarily indicative of retaliation. But when

23 viewed in the context of other events and actions that occurred at the same time, particularly the

24 Saturday “sex with bosses” comment, they may be seen as constituting retaliation. Burlington Northern

25 & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. at 68. (2008). A juror, viewing these events in context

26

27

3Ms. Morris declaration incorrectly gives the date as December 4, 2007. From the context and

28 sequence of subsequent events, it is clear that she meant 2004, not 2007.

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 11

1 from an objective point of view, could reasonably find an adverse employment action. Summary

2 judgment shall accordingly be DENIED as to the retaliation claim.

3

Like Ms. Strange, Ms. Morris took several months of FMLA leave because she was suffering

4 physical symptoms from her situation at work. She returned to work April 11, 2005. On Saturday,

5 April 16, 2005, plaintiff had an “altercation” with the manager’s wife. It began with a telephone call in

6 which Ms. Morris felt that Mrs. Mowbray was deliberately rude to her. When Mrs. Mowbray came into

7 the store later that same day,

8

[s]he walked up to the counter and came very close to me. I thought she was going

to hit me and I braced myself for the punch I thought might be thrown. Mrs. Mowbry [sic] said

9

in an angry tone, “Don’t you ever tell me what I can and cannot do when I

call or come into the store.” I replied that I had never said anything like that and then asked if

10

when she called she would not be so openly rude to me.

11

Upon my saying that, Mrs. Mowbry [sic] walked behind the counter towards me.

She came even closer to me and was visibly angry. She put her finger in my face and gritted her

12

teeth. Mrs. Mowbry said in an even more angry and agitated tone that she

had nothing more to say to me. I was fearful for my physical safety.

13

14 Declaration of Magan Morris, Dkt. # 193, ¶¶ 20 - 21. Customers in the store observed this incident, as

15 well as employees, who offered no help or support to plaintiff. Id. On Monday, two days later, Ms.

16 Morris tendered her resignation, and then filed an EEOC charge claiming constructive discharge.

17

Defendant has moved for summary judgment on the constructive discharge claim, contending

18 that it fails as a matter of law. Defendant argues that the incident with Mrs. Mowbray, who was not a

19 Les Schwab employee, was the sole retaliation experienced by Ms. Morris in the five days she worked

20 after returning from FMLA leave. Further, she gave the company no opportunity to address the

21 problem, and continued to refuse a standing offer for transfer into a Sales and Service position at a

22 different store.

23

The Court has set forth above, the standards for a constructive discharge, but repeats them here.

24 A plaintiff may overcome the presumption under Washington law that resignation was voluntary by

25 demonstrating a deliberate act by the employer that made her working conditions so intolerable that a

26 reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. Washington v. Boeing, 105 Wash. App. at 15.

27 (2000). Under Title VII, a plaintiff “must show that the abusive working environment became so

28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 12

1 intolerable that here resignation qualified as a fitting response.” Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders,

2 542 U.S. at 133.

3

In considering plaintiff’s allegations relating to her claim of constructive discharge, the

4 confrontation with the manager’s wife cannot be viewed in isolation. According to Ms. Morris, this was

5 the second time that she suffered severe humiliation in front of other employees, and in this case, in

6 front of customers as well. She already felt that Mr. Mowbray had retaliated against her by unfairly

7 criticizing her performance in front of others. She stated in her declaration that the events caused her

8 symptoms severe enough that she was certified for medical FMLA leave. It is for the jury to determine

9 whether the additional humiliation of the altercation with the manager’s wife was sufficient to render

10 Ms. Morris’ working situation so intolerable that resignation was a fitting response. Id. Summary

11 judgment is accordingly DENIED as to Ms. Morris’ constructive discharge claim.

12

In summary, defendant’s two motions for summary judgment on the individual claims of

13 plaintiffs Morris and Strange, Dkt. ## 160 and 163, are DENIED in their entirety.

14

15

Dated this _8_ day of September 2009.

16

17

A

18

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 13

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 354 Filed 11/09/09 Page 1 of 4

I

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

AT SEATTLE

8

9

IO JENNIFER STRANGE and MAGEN MORRIS,

11

Plaintiff,

I2

v.

13

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,

I4

Defendant.

I5

CASE NO. C06-0045RSM SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

I6

I7

WE THE JURY, answer the following questions submitted by the Court as follows:

I8

I9 QUESTION NO. I

20

Did defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers discriminate against either or both of the plaintiffs on the

2I basis of sex by denying her opportunities for promotion or training for promotion to the position of

No_i_ 22 Assistant Manager after January 13, 2003?

23

a. Jennifer Strange:

Yes _ _

24

b. Magen Morris:

X Yes - - No

25

26

27 28 SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111
06-CV-00045-CJA

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 354 Filed 11/09/09 Page 2 of 4

1 QUESTION NO. 2

2

Did defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers retaliate against either or both plaintiffs in violation of

3 Washington State law?

4

a. Jennifer Strange:

Yes "/..

No _ __

5

b. Magen Morris:

Yes_i__ No _ __

6

7 QUESTION NO. 3

8

Did defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers constructively discharge either or both plaintiffs in

9 violation ofWashington State law?

10

a. Jennifer Strange:

Yes

No '!-

11

b. Magen Morris:

Yes

No_l___

12

l3 QUESTION NO. 4

14

Did defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers retaliate against either or both plaintiffs in violation of

15 federal law?

16

a. Jennifer Strange:

y~t No

17

b. Magen Morris:

Yes

No

18

19 QUESTION NO. 5

20

Did defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers constructively discharge either or both plaintiffs in

21 violation of federal law?

22

a. Jennifer Strange:

Yes _ __ No

23

b. Magen Morris:

Yes _ __ No_j_

24

25 If you answered "yes" to any Question I, 2, 3, 4, or 5, proceed to Question 6. If you answered 'no'

26 to Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 please skip the remaining questions, and sign and date the Verdict.

27

28 SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 354 Filed 11/09/09 Page 3 of 4

1 QUESTION NO. 6

2

If you found for either plaintiffin any of the questions set forth above, what is the amount of

3 damages you award to that plaintiff for each of the following:

4

a. Jennifer Strange:

5

(1) Past economic damages:

6

(2) Future economic damages:

7

(3) Past and future emotional distress:

$_!...,-¢_ _
$._(/;:l:...---
$ Y2 (.gOO

8

9

b. Magen Morris

10

(I) Past economic damages:

11

(2) Future economic damages:

12

(3) Past and future emotional distress:

13

$~rbr--------
$._~(f~---
$ t..i2CP00
'

14

If you answered "yes" to either Question 4 or 5, proceed to Question 7. If you answered

15 "no" to both Questions 4 and 5, please skip the questions below, and sign and date the Verdict.

16

17 QUESTION NO. 7

18

Do you find that defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers should be punished for its actions by

L 19 awarding punitive damages?

20

Answer:

Yes

No _ __

21

22 If you answer "yes" to Question 7, proceed to Question 8. If you answered "no" to Question 7, 23 please sign and date the Verdict.

24

25

26

27

28 SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 354 Filed 11/09/09 Page 4 of 4

1 QUESTION NO. 8

2

What amount of punitive dama~es do you award to either plaintiff?

3

a. Jennifer Strange:

(/ jW 1000

4

b. Magen Morris:

f ICl) l c:t:i)

5

6

PLEASE SIGN AND DATE THE VERDICT.

7

8

_9__ DATED this

day of

NO{emil{' 2009.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10

11

12 JENNIFER STRANGE and MAGAN MORRIS,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

CASE NO. C06-0045RSM ORDER

18 This matter comes before the Court for consideration of defendants’ Rule 59(a) motion for a new
19 trial or, in the alternative, remittitur of the punitive damage award. Dkt. # 359. Defendants contend
20 that a new trial is warranted because the jury verdict on plaintiffs’ retaliation claims is contrary to the
21 clear weight of the evidence, and counsel’s closing argument was improper. In the alternative,
22 defendants move for remittitur of the punitive damages award. Plaintiffs have opposed the motion in
23 all respects. The Court has fully considered the parties’ memoranda and exhibits, and shall deny the
24 motion for the reasons set forth below.
25 I. Motion for a New Trial
26 Plaintiffs’ federal and state law claims of employment discrimination and retaliation were tried
27

28 ORDER - 1

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 15

1 to a jury in November, 2009. The trial began November 2, 2009, and the jury was instructed and began

2 deliberations on November 6, 2009. On November 9, 2009, the jury returned a verdict in favor of both

3 plaintiffs on their retaliation claims, but not on their discrimination and constructive discharge claims.

4 Dkt. # 354. Each plaintiff was awarded $42,600 in damages for emotional distress, and $100,000 in

5 punitive damages in connection with her federal claim of retaliation. Id. Defendants timely filed this

6 motion for new trial or remittitur of punitive damages.

7

a. Legal Standard

8

Rule 59(a) states, “A new trial may be granted ... in an action in which there has been a trial by

9 jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the

10 courts of the United States.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1). The burden of proof on a motion for a new trial is

11 on the moving party, and the Court should not lightly disturb a plausible jury verdict.

12

Although Rule 59 does not specify the grounds on which a motion for a new trial may be

13 granted, this Court is “bound by those grounds that have been historically recognized.” Zhang v.

14 American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003). Historically recognized grounds

15 include, but are not limited to, claims “that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that the

16 damages are excessive, or that, for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving.”

17 Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251 (1940). In the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he trial court

18 may grant a new trial only if the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, is based upon

19 false or perjurious evidence, or to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson

20 Consumer Prods., 212 F.3d 493, 510 n. 15 (9th Cir.2000).

21

Upon the Rule 59 motion of the party against whom a verdict has been returned, the district court

22 has “the duty ... to weigh the evidence as [the court] saw it, and to set aside the verdict of the jury, even

23 though supported by substantial evidence, where, in [the court's] conscientious opinion, the verdict is

24 contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F. 3d 724, 729 (9th Cir.

25 2007); citing Murphy v. City of Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Moist Cold

26 Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co., 249 F.2d 246, 256 (9th Cir.1957)). “The judge can weigh the

27 evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses, and need not view the evidence from the perspective

28 ORDER - 2

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 3 of 15

1 most favorable to the prevailing party” in ruling on a motion for a new trial. Landes Const. Co., Inc. v.

2 Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir.1987). However, it is an abuse of discretion to

3 order a new trial if the jury’s verdict is not “clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Roy v.

4 Volkswagen of America, Inc., 896 F.2d 1174, 1176 (9th Cir.1990) as amended, 920 F.2d 618, 619; cert.

5 denied, 500 U.S. 928 (1991) (citing McGhee v. Arabian American Oil Co., 871 F. 2d 1412, 1420 (9th

6 Cir. 1989) (quoting William Inglis & Sons v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F. 2d 1014, 1027 (9th Cir.

7 1981)).

8

b. Analysis

9

1 Motion Regarding Retaliation Claims

10

In moving for a new trial, defendants assert that the jury’s verdict on the retaliation claims was

11 not supported by the weight of the evidence as to either plaintiff. As to plaintiff Magen Morris’

12 testimony that workplace went “from friendly to cold” after she filed her claim of discrimination with

13 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), defendants argue, “Morris did not identify

14 anyone other than her manager, Doug Mowbray, who treated her differently, and he testified that after

15 Morris filed her initial charge, things ‘stayed about the same.’” Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. # 359, p. 4

16 (emphasis added). This argument disregards Ms. Morris’ testimony that after she filed the charge, she

17 was “basically no longer talked to,” she was “avoided,” and “things just were different. Doug didn’t

18 talk to me anymore. And before, you know, they were my friends.” Declaration of Warren Martin, Dkt.

19 # 372, p. 43 (Trial Transcript (“Tr.”), p. 315). The jury, in hearing this conflicting testimony, had the

20 opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and consider all the related testimony, and decide who

21 was the more credible witness—Mr. Mowbray or Ms. Morris. The Court, in weighing the evidence and

22 assessing the credibility of the witnesses, finds no basis for questioning the jury’s choice to believe Ms.

23 Morris’ testimony.

24

Defendants also contend that Mr. Mowbray’s handling of an offensive remark by employee

25 Justin Babitsky was proper and not an example of retaliation. According to defendants, in calling Ms.

26 Morris in to the office to witness the reprimands and hear an apology, Mr. Mowbray “did exactly what

27 Morris wanted done and then went even further in resolving the matter.” Defendant’s Motion, Dkt. #

28 ORDER - 3

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 4 of 15

1 359, p. 5. Defendants’ argument completely misses the point that Ms. Morris, as she testified, felt

2 embarrassed and humiliated by being made to repeat the offensive comment in front of the men---a point

3 that clearly was not lost on the jury. Tr. 322. Defendants point out that Mr. Mowbray denied that he

4 made her recite the offensive comment in front of “a group of people.” Tr. 428. Again, the jury drew its

5 own conclusions about the two witnesses’ statements about this incident and their relative credibility; a

6 conclusion with which the Court agrees.

7

Defendants’ related argument that this incident does not support liability because the comment

8 was a “stray remark” unrelated to Ms. Morris’ EEOC charge, is misplaced. It was Mr. Mowbray’s

9 handling of the incident, not the comment itself, that constituted the retaliatory conduct.

10

As to Jennifer Strange, defendants contend that the events and actions which she considered

11 retaliatory amounted to nothing more than petty slights and minor annoyances, and some incidents were

12 uncorroborated by other witnesses. Further, Ms. Strange’s manager, Mark Witham, testified that he

13 never saw or heard of the events which Ms. Strange described.

14

Q [To Mr. Witham]: After Ms. Strange filed her charge, did managers come over to your

store and laugh and make jokes about her?

15

A: No.

16

Q: Did you ever see your crew laughing or making jokes?

17

A: No.

18

Tr. 411.

19

Defendants’ summary of the evidence minimizes the weight of Ms. Strange’s testimony about

20

retaliation, and omits any mention of two significant events to which she testified. One was when she

21

left work in tears, and Mr. Witham followed her out, “running alongside of me telling me, ‘Say the

22

words. Say the words. Tell me what you’re doing. . . ’” Tr. 224. Ms Strange testified that he was

23

“trying to get me to say that I quit.” Id. The second omitted incident occurred just prior to this, when,

24

as Ms. Strange testified, Mr. Within informed her that he had hired another employee to do her work,

25

and she would be doing cleaning. Id. Ms. Strange’s testimony on these two incidents was credible and

26

clearly supported the jury’s verdict on her retaliation claim.

27

28 ORDER - 4

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 5 of 15

1

Defendants have also omitted mention of Ms. Strange’s testimony about being called names by

2 her co-workers after she filed her EEOC charge, apparently including these comments in the remarks of

3 which Mr. Withham denied knowledge, as set forth above. However, Ms. Strange testified that

4

I understand that people out in the tire bays were curious as to what was going on, and I

don’t know what they were hearing from Mark or Jeff, but I’d walk by and, under their

5

breath or in a cough, they’d call me a bitch, they’d call me a whore. It was nonstop as

soon as I got near anybody there.

6

Tr. 216. In light of this testimony, the other name-calling incidents which defendants do

7

address—including the name-calling by Mr. Witham’s wife—cannot be seen in isolation as mere “petty

8

slights” as defendants suggest. Nor does Ms. Strange’s testimony require corroboration before it can be

9

accepted as true. The Court found her testimony on these events entirely credible, and apparently the

10

jury did as well.

11

In their reply memorandum, defendants asset that

12

Strange also harps on the event that gave rise to her failed constructive discharge claim

13

(which, again, occurred months after her initial charge). The jury rejected that claim,

and the Court can compare Strange’s testimony about supposedly being told she would

14

be the store’s janitor with her store manager’s and assistant manager’s very different

15

account of that meeting. This does not support the verdict on Strange’s retaliation claim.

16 Defendants’ Reply, Dkt. # 380, p. 5. This argument, in addition to indicating a somewhat dismissive

17 attitude toward Ms. Strange, also demonstrates defendants’ failure to recognize that the jury must have

18 resolved the conflict in the testimony about the “janitor incident” by finding Ms. Strange a more

19 credible witness than her managers. In independently assessing the witnesses’ credibility for the

20 purpose of this motion, the Court would agree with the jury. The testimony of Mark Witham, Ms.

21 Strange’s manager, was notable in particular for his repeated blanket denials of Ms. Strange’s testimony,

22 denials which in light of the totality of the testimony in this case were not entirely credible. See, e.g.

23 Dkt. # 360-2 p. 39, 41- 43 (Tr. 406, 411-13).

24

Having viewed the evidence of retaliation as the Court itself saw it, the Court cannot find that the

25 jury’s verdict was at all “contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Roy v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.,

26 896 F.2d at 1176. Defendants’ motion for a new trial on this basis is accordingly DENIED. .

27

28 ORDER - 5

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 6 of 15

1

2. Motion to Reverse Punitive Damage Award

2

Defendants contend that even if there were sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict on

3 the retaliation claims, the punitive damage award is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Defendants

4 assert that the evidence shows that defendants maintained policies prohibiting discrimination in the

5 workplace, and that therefore they are entitled to assert a Kolstad defense. In Kolstad, the Supreme

6 Court held that punitive damages may be awarded in a Title VII case only when a defendant engages in

7 intentional discrimination “with malice or with reckless indifference to the [plaintiff's] federally

8 protected rights.” Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526, 535 (1999). Further, “in the

9 punitive damages context, an employer may not be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment

10 decisions of managerial agents where those decisions are contrary to the employer's ‘good faith efforts

11 to comply with Title VII.’ ” Id. at 545. Defendants assert that under Kolstad, “[p]unitive damages

12 cannot be awarded where an employer has adopted anti-discrimination policies and made good faith

13 efforts to educate its employees and enforce its policies.” Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. # 359, p. 8, citing

14 E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 505 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1059 (D.N.M. 2007). Defendants contend

15 that “this remains true even where managers are accused of the acts giving rise to the claim.” Id., citing

16 E.E.O.C. v. Caterpillar Inc., 503 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1047-48 (N.D. Ill. 2007).

17

Under Kolstad, defendants “may now establish an affirmative defense to punitive damages

18 liability when they have a bona fide policy against discrimination, regardless of whether or not the

19 prohibited activity engaged in by their managerial employees involved a tangible employment action.”

20 Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, 212 F. 3d 493, 516 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

21 defendants did not plead this as an affirmative defense; their only defense asserted to the punitive

22 damages is that they are barred under Washington law. Answer to Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. #

23 120, p. 6 ¶ 11; Pretrial Order, Dkt. # 236, p. 3. As a general rule, the omission of an affirmative defense

24 from the responsive pleading constitutes a waiver of that affirmative defense. Metcalf v. Golden ( In re

25 Adbox, Inc.), 488 F.3d 836, 841 (9th Cir.2007). However, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a liberalized

26 reading of this rule and holds that “[i]n the absence of a showing of prejudice, an affirmative defense

27 may be raised for the first time at summary judgment.” Camarillo v. McCarthy, 998 F.2d 638, 639 (9th

28 ORDER - 6

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 7 of 15

1 Cir.1993) (citing Rivera v. Anaya, 726 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1984)). Defendants did raise Kolsted in a

2 motion for partial summary judgment on the EEOC’s punitive damages claim, but did not similarly raise

3 it with respect to the individual plaintiffs’ claims. Dkt. # 154. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this

4 analysis, the Court will deem the Kolstad defense properly raised, and address it on the merits.

5

Defendants have cited only out-of circuit district court decisions for the assertion that punitive

6 damages “cannot be awarded” where the employer has anti-discrimination policies in place; authority

7 which does not bind this Court. A better statement of the rule in the Ninth Circuit is this:

8

[I]t is well established that it is insufficient for an employer simply to have in place

anti-harassment policies; it must also implement them.” See, Passantino v. Johnson

9

& Johnson Consumer Products., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 517 (9th Cir. 2000); and Lowery v.

Circuit City Stores, 206 F.3d 431, 446 (4th Cir.2000) (“While an employer's institution

10

of a written policy against race discrimination may go a long way toward dispelling any

claim about the employer's reckless or malicious state of mind with respect to racial

11

minorities, such a policy is not automatically a bar to the imposition of punitive

damages.”) (citation omitted).

12

Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F. 3d 794, 810-11 (9th Cir. 2001). Not only must the employer show it

13

has an anti-discrimination policy, but that it has implemented the policy in good faith. Passantino, 212

14

F.3d at 517. The purpose of Title VII would be “undermined if those policies were not implemented

15

and were allowed instead to serve only as a device to allow employers to escape punitive damages for

16

the discriminatory activities of managerial employees.” Id. Thus, the sincerity and effectiveness of the

17

implementation of the anti-discrimination policy raise questions of fact for the jury.

18

The jury here was instructed, under Kolstad, that

19

You may award punitive damages only if you find that the defendant’s conduct that

20

harmed the plaintiff was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s

rights. Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the

21

purpose of injuring the plaintiff. Conduct is in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights

if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to the plaintiff’s safety or

22

rights, or if the defendant acts in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate

the plaintiff’s rights under federal law. An act or omission is oppressive if the defendant

23

injures or damages or otherwise violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary

harshness or severity, such as by the misuse or abuse of authority or power or by the

24

taking advantage of some weakness or disability or misfortune of the plaintiff.

25 Court’s Instructions to the Jury, Dkt. # 352, Instruction No. 24. This is the language from the Ninth

26 Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil Instruction No. 5.5, exactly as it was requested by defendants.

27 Joint Statement of Disputed Instructions, Dkt. # 341, p. 28-29. By requesting this instruction,

28 ORDER - 7

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 8 of 15

1 defendants agreed to put the question of Les Schwab’s good faith effort to implement an anti-retaliation

2 policy before the jury.

3

Had defendants raised Kolstad as an affirmative defense, they would have had the burden of

4 proving that they had “an adequate anti-retaliation policy that was implemented in good faith.” Winarto

5 v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., 274 F. 3d 1276, 1291 (9th Cir. 2001); citing

6 Passantino, 212 F. 3d at 516-17. Instead, under the instruction requested by defendants and given by

7 the Court, plaintiffs had the burden of proving that they were entitled to punitive damages because

8 defendants’ harmful conduct was “malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s

9 rights.” Instruction No. 24. Nevertheless, the jury determined that plaintiffs met this burden with their

10 testimony that after they filed charges with the EEOC, each one was subjected to belittlement,

11 avoidance, changed schedules, reprimands, and demotion by her supervisor. Although the managers

12 denied this, the jury was in the best position to view the conflicting testimony in light of witnesses’

13 demeanor, and evaluate their credibility. As noted above, the Court, in making its own assessment of

14 the witnesses’ credibility as required, finds, as did the jury, that plaintiffs were the more credible

15 witnesses. Landes Const. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d at 1371. The Court therefore

16 does not find that the jury’s award of punitive damages was contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.

17

3. Improper Closing Argument

18

Defendants also move for a new trial on the basis that plaintiffs’ closing argument was improper

19 in several respects. First, defendants assert that in urging the jury, near the end of closing, to “do

20 justice,” counsel made “a bald appeal to the passion of the jury.” Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. # 359, p.

21 11. The argument to which defendants object was the following:

22

When considering how to do justice in this case, do it in a way when you leave this

courtroom, you look at your spouse or you look at your significant other, and you say,

23

“I did justice.” Do it in a way that if you see Magen Morris or Jennifer Strange on the

street two years from now, you can look them in the eye and you can say, “I was on

24

your jury and I did what was right.” When you’re thinking---

25 Dkt. # 360-4, p. 13 (Closing Argument, Tr. 63). At this point defendants objected, and the objection

26 was sustained. Id. Counsel for plaintiffs then quickly finished his argument: “You’ve seen the

27 evidence, you understand what the process is, you’ve heard arguments, now the case is yours. Do

28 ORDER - 8

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 9 of 15

1 what’s right. Thank you.” Id. Defendants contend that this argument was inflammatory because “it

2 was the last thing the jury heard before deliberating.” Defendant’s Motion, Dkt. # 359, p. 11.

3

A new trial on the basis of improper closing argument should only be granted where the “flavor

4 of misconduct” “sufficiently permeate[s] an entire proceeding to provide conviction that the jury was

5 influenced by passion and prejudice in reaching its verdict.” Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools,

6 371 F. 3d 503, 516 (9th Cir. 2004); quoting Kehr v. Smith Barney, 736 F. 2d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir. 1984)

7 (quoting Standard Oil of California v. Perkins, 347 F. 2d 379, 388 (9th Cir. 1965). Where the moving

8 party failed to object to the alleged improper argument at trial, an even higher threshold applies. Id.

9

Here, defendants did object to counsel’s suggestion that the jurors “do justice” so that they could

10 look plaintiffs in the eye if they saw them on the street later. However, this argument did not rise to the

11 level of passion and prejudice required to warrant a new trial. In this Court’s experience it was well

12 within the bounds of propriety. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has observed, “[u]sing some

13 degree of emotionally charged language during closing argument in a civil case is a well-accepted tactic

14 in American courtrooms. “ Id. at 518.

15

Defendants also contend that counsel improperly vouched for plaintiffs’ credibility when he

16 stated, “It’s difficult for me to be able to convey the harm that I know has been incurred in this

17 situation” and “As far as the emotional distress . . . I know from working with these individuals how

18 much this whole thing has hurt them, and that is huge.” Dkt. # 360-4, p. 2, 9 (Closing Argument, Tr. 9,

19 29). Defendants ask that these statements be compared to a statement that a Michigan appellate court

20 found worthy of reversal, namely “if there was one ounce of fake in that man, I wouldn’t be here

21 representing him.” Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. # 359, p. 11, quoting Shemman v. Am. S. S. Co, 280 N.W.

22 2d 852 (Mich. App. 1979). Defendants also contend that statements such as counsel made are

23 forbidden by the Rules of Professional Conduct, which state that a lawyer shall not “assert personal

24 knowledge of facts in issue . . . or state a personal opinion as to the justice of a cause [or] the credibility

25 of a witness.” RPC 3.4(c).

26

Neither statement here comes close to matching the “one ounce of fake” statement for

27 impropriety. Indeed, when they are viewed in context—as the jury actually heard them—they do not

28 ORDER - 9

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 10 of 15

1 appear at all improper. The full first statement was made near the beginning of closing argument:

2

It’s times like this that, at least my adequacy as an attorney, it’s difficult for me to be able

to convey the harm that I know has been incurred in this situation. This is a circumstance

3

that should never have happened.

4

It’s been 40 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and the type of discrimination

and retaliation that was set forth in this trial should have long been disposed of in our society.

5

Dkt. # 360-4, p. 2 (Closing Argument, Tr. 9). Nowhere in this brief statement does counsel assert

6

personal knowledge of facts in issue; he is if anything expressing frustration at his own inadequacy in

7

summarizing the case for the jury.

8

The second statement to which defendants object occurred in the context of assessing damages:

9

[You take] Robert Moss’s numbers that he determined for Jennifer Strange and you take

10

the numbers regarding Magen Morris, and you consider a valid point raised by the defense,

which is what is the probably [sic] of them achieving these positions, and you figure out

11

what that percentage is, and you apply that number against that percentage.

12

As far as the emotional distress, it’s difficult to tell you what that number would be, but I

know from working with these individuals how much this whole thing has hurt them, and

13

that is huge. So I think the number that you assess for emotional distress should be

somewhat equivalent to the economic loss that you apply.

14

Id., p. 9 (Closing Argument, Tr. 29). The Court does not view this statement, taken in context, as

15

vouching for the witnesses’ credibility.

16

Defendants also contend that “counsel argued improperly by suggesting that Les Schwab’s very

17

act of defending itself was in bad faith.” Defendant’s Motion, Dkt. # 359, p. 12. Again, defendants

18

have taken isolated sections of the closing argument out of context in order to make them appear to be

19

improper. The first challenged statement, in which counsel characterized his clients as “lambs,”

20

appeared within the argument on damages; counsel referred in the same sentence to the fact that the two

21

plaintiffs had to endure “delving through medical records” and hearing mention of an affair one of them

22

had with her supervisor at a young age. Dkt. # 360-4, p. 10 (Closing Argument, Tr. 30). This

23

description of how difficult the case was for the plaintiffs to bring did not characterize defendants as

24

acting in bad faith.

25

In the second challenged statement, counsel argued,

26

And considering how much money and effort was spent to discredit, pick apart, and call

27

liars of these two women, was this a company that, if they had gone to them, would have

28 ORDER - 10

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 11 of 15

1

embraced them?

2 Id., p. 8 (Closing Argument, Tr. 22). Counsel did not say this in the context of arguing on damages or

3 defendants’ culpability; he was explaining at that point why the plaintiffs did not take their complaints

4 regarding their treatment higher in the company than their own managers. In the sentences immediately

5 preceding, counsel asked the jury to consider,

6

Is Jodie Hueske wearing a legal hat for the department really the employees’ advocate? Is

that where they should have gone? Would they have gotten a fair shake?

7

Id. Seen in context, this statement was not an invitation to the jury to view defendants’ “very act of 8

defending itself” as evidence of bad faith. 9

Finally, defendants argue that counsel “made confusing and improper references to irrelevant 10

theories of liability and acts not in evidence.” Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. # 359, p. 12. Defendants did 11

not object at the time to any of the statements they now challenge. In the absence of a contemporaneous 12

objection, defendants must now demonstrate “plain or fundamental error.” Settlegoode, 371 F. 3d at 13

517. The Court, having reviewed the challenged statements in context of the closing argument, as the 14

jury heard it, finds no plain or fundamental error in any of them, and no basis for ordering a new trial. 15

II. Remittitur of the Punitive Damage Awards 16

Defendants contend that, in the event the Court declines to order a new trial, it should find that 17

the amount of punitive damages awarded was excessive. If the Court concludes that a damages award is 18

excessive, it may either grant the defendant's motion for a new trial, or deny the motion, conditioned 19

upon the prevailing party's acceptance of a remittitur. Silver Sage Partners, Ltd., v. City of Desert Hot 20

Springs, 251 F.3d 814, 818 (2001). 21

Remittitur is a remedy available to correct excessive verdicts. Pershing Park Villas Homeowners 22

Assoc. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 895, 905 (9th Cir.2000). A trial court reviewing a damages 23

award attacked as excessive must consider the evidence of damages in a light most favorable to the 24

prevailing party. Seymour v. Summa Vista Cinema, Inc., 809 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1987), amended 25

on other grounds by, 817 F.2d 609 (9th Cir.1987). A trial court granting a motion for remittitur does not 26

substitute its judgment for that of the jury, but instead reduces the judgment to the maximum amount 27

28 ORDER - 11

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 12 of 15

1 sustainable by the proof. D & S Redi-Mix v. Sierra Redi-Mix & Contracting Co., 692 F.2d 1245, 1249

2 (9th Cir.1982) (citations omitted).

3

Due Process “prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a

4 tortfeasor.” State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416 (2003). No “simple

5 mathematical formula” exists in this area. BMW of N. America., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 582 (1996)

6 (“Gore”). Nevertheless, the Court has pointed to three guideposts: “(1) the degree of reprehensibility of

7 the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the

8 plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded

9 by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.” State Farm, 538 U.S. at

10 418, citing Gore, 517 U.S. at 575. In considering these factors, the goal is to determine whether the

11 punitive damages achieved their ultimate objectives of deterrence and punishment, without being

12 unreasonable or disproportionate. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, --- U.S. ----, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 2621

13 (2008); State Farm, 538 U.S. at 419, 426.

14

“[T]he most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree

15 of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct.” State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 538 U.S. at 419

16 (quoting Gore, 517 U.S. at 575). To determine reprehensibility, the Court should consider whether the

17 following aggravating factors are present: “(1) the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic;

18 (2) the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of

19 others; (3) the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; (4) the conduct involved repeated

20 actions or was an isolated incident; and (5) the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or

21 deceit, or mere accident.” Id.

22

Four of the factors enumerated are present. The harm to plaintiffs was physical (emotional

23 distress and resulting symptoms); the targets of the tortious conduct were financially vulnerable; the

24 conduct involved repeated actions by the managers and assistant managers; and, the harm was the result

25 of intentional malice. This last determination is based on the instruction given the jury, that in order to

26 award punitive damages, they must find that defendants’ conduct was malicious, oppressive or in

27 reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

28 ORDER - 12

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 13 of 15

1

Turning to the second Gore factor, the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages

2 awarded, the Court finds that the approximate 2-to-1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages

3 is reasonable, and well within the bounds of due process. As the Supreme Court has noted, there is no

4 “bright line” rule, but single-digit multipliers are generally within an acceptable range.

5

Our jurisprudence and the principles it has now established demonstrate, however, that,

in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory

6

damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process. In Haslip,1 in upholding a punitive

damages award, we concluded that an award of more than four times the amount of

7

compensatory damages might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety. We cited

8

that 4-to-1 ratio again in Gore. The Court further referenced a long legislative history, dating back over 700 years and going forward to today, providing for sanctions of double,

9

treble, or quadruple damages to deter and punish. While these ratios are not binding, they

are instructive. They demonstrate what should be obvious: Single-digit multipliers are more

10

likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State's goals of deterrence and

retribution, than awards with ratios in range of 500 to 1, or, in this case, of 145 to 1.

11

State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 538 U.S. at 426 (internal citations omitted). 12

In considering the third Gore factor, the Court finds that the punitive damage award of $100,000 13

to each plaintiff is compatible with civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. For 14

example, in a Ninth Circuit case involving race discrimination, in which the jury awarded $35,000 in 15

compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages, the court noted that it was the type of case 16

described by the Supreme Court in Gore: a low award of compensatory damages supporting a higher 17

ratio of punitive damages because of the egregious conduct and the difficulty of quantifying harm. 18

Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 818 (9th Cir.2001). This was particularly true because the 19

injury was primarily personal. Id. In the same case, the Ninth Circuit held that a defendant's wealth 20

could be a factor in assessing the ratio. Id. at 818-19. 21

In Passantino, a case arising in this district and cited extensively above in the context of the 22

Kolstad defense, the jury found that although the defendant had not discriminated against Passantino 23

initially, it did retaliate against her for complaining about what she perceived as sex discrimination. The 24

jury awarded Passantino $100,000 in back pay, $2,000,000 in front pay, $1,000,000 in compensatory 25

26

27

1Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991).

28 ORDER - 13

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 14 of 15

1 emotional distress damages, and $8,600,000 in punitive damages. Defendant moved to strike or reduce

2 the punitive and compensatory damage awards, a motion which the court granted in part and denied in

3 part. The district court allocated all of the compensatory damages, front pay, and back pay to

4 Passantino's state law claim and all of the punitive damages to the Title VII claim. It then reduced the

5 punitive damage award to the $300,000 Title VII cap and affirmed the remainder of the award. On

6 appeal, although the Ninth Circuit Court Appeals remanded for consideration of the punitive damages in

7 light of Kolstad, the court specifically noted that the evidence was “unquestionably sufficient” to

8 support the $300,000 punitive damage award. Passantino, 212 F. 3d at 514.

9

In a Title VII case in Idaho, the district court declined to apply a single digit multiplier to the

10 nominal damage award of $1.00, and upheld punitive damages of $100,000. Bjornson v. Dave Smith

11 Motors/Frontier Leasing and Sales, 578 F.Supp.2d 1269 (D.Id. 2008). In a case brought under both

12 Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in Oregon, where the jury awarded each of four plaintiffs $2.75 million

13 in punitive damages, the district court granted remittiteur and reduced the punitive damages to $150,000

14 for each plaintiff. Paul, et al., v. Asbury Automotive Group,LLC, 2009 WL 188592 (D.Or.) The court

15 found this amount reasonable even though the plaintiffs “suffered no physical, economic, or severe

16 emotional harm,” there was no evidence of malice or of retaliation against the plaintiffs for complaining

17 about racial comments, and defendants had an anti-harassment policy in place. Id. at * 10. In another

18 case arising in Oregon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a

19 motion for a new trial where the jury awarded $300,000 in punitive damages for Title VII violations.

20 Pavon v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 192 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 1999).

21

Having fully considered the Gore factors, including the reprehensibility of defendants’ conduct,

22 the ratio between the compensatory and punitive damages, and awards in comparable cases, the Court

23 finds no basis for reducing the punitive damage award or granting defendants a new trial.

24

25

CONCLUSION

26

The Court in this case trusts the sound judgment of the jurors, who attentively listened to the

27 testimony over the course of the trial. The Court finds that the jury's verdict and award of punitive

28 ORDER - 14

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 383 Filed 01/08/10 Page 15 of 15

1 damages is supported by the record and should not be disturbed. Defendants’ motion for a new trial

2 (Dkt. # 359) is accordingly DENIED.

3

Dated this 8th day of January, 2010.

4

5

A

6

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER - 15

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 384 Filed 01/11/10 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9

10

11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF 15 WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,

16

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-0045RSM
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM

17

18

This matter comes before the Court for consideration of defendants’ motion for partial summary

19 judgment on plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC’s”) claim for punitive

20 damages. Dkt. # 154. Plaintiffs have opposed the motion. The Court deems oral argument on this

21 motion unnecessary and, for the reasons set forth below shall deny the motion.

22

DISCUSSION

23

This is one of five contemporaneous motions for partial summary judgment filed by defendants,

24 three of which are addressed to the EEOC’s claims. Dkt. ## 139, 154, 156. The filing of multiple

25 summary judgment motions to circumvent the page limits set in the Local Rules is discouraged, and

26 successive motions may be stricken. Local Rule CR 7(e)(3). The Court has previously ruled on one of

27 the motions (Dkt. # 139), and the remaining motion comprises the allowed twenty-four pages on its

28 ORDER - 1

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 384 Filed 01/11/10 Page 2 of 4

1 own. Dkt. # 156. This motion could be stricken on this basis, but the Court will address it on the

2 merits.

3

Defendants contend summary judgment is appropriate because plaintiff EEOC has no evidence

4 to support an award of punitive damages, which is available in a Title VII case only where the defendant

5 engages in intentional discrimination “with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally

6 protected rights of an aggrieved individual.” Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. # 154, p. 3

7 (quoting Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 (1999). Defendants assert that under

8 Kolstad, punitive damages are inappropriate where the employer has adopted anti-discrimination

9 policies, has made a good faith effort to educate its employees about those policies, and made a good

10 faith effort to enforce the anti-discrimination policy. Id., p. 4, citing E.E.O.C. v. University of Phoenix,

11 Inc., 505 F. Supp. 1045, 1059 (D.N.M. 2007).

12

Under Kolstad, defendants “may now establish an affirmative defense to punitive damages

13 liability when they have a bona fide policy against discrimination, regardless of whether or not the

14 prohibited activity engaged in by their managerial employees involved a tangible employment action.”

15 Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, 212 F. 3d 493, 516 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

16 defendants failed to plead this as an affirmative defense. Answer to EEOC’s First Amended Complaint,

17 Dkt. # 37. As a general rule, the omission of an affirmative defense from the responsive pleading

18 constitutes a waiver of that affirmative defense. Metcalf v. Golden ( In re Adbox, Inc.), 488 F.3d 836,

19 841 (9th Cir.2007). However, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a more liberalized reading of this rule and

20 holds that “[i]n the absence of a showing of prejudice, an affirmative defense may be raised for the first

21 time at summary judgment.” Camarillo v. McCarthy, 998 F.2d 638, 639 (9th Cir.1993) (citing Rivera v.

22 Anaya, 726 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1984)). Neither side has addressed the issue of prejudice from

23 defendants’ delay in raising the Kolstad affirmative defense. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this

24 analysis, the Court will deem the Kolstad defense properly raised.

25

In this circuit,

26

[I]t is well established that it is insufficient for an employer simply to have in place

anti-harassment policies; it must also implement them.” See, Passantino v. Johnson

27

& Johnson Consumer Products., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 517 (9th Cir. 2000); and Lowery v.

28 ORDER - 2

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 384 Filed 01/11/10 Page 3 of 4

1

Circuit City Stores, 206 F.3d 431, 446 (4th Cir.2000) (“While an employer's institution

of a written policy against race discrimination may go a long way toward dispelling any

2

claim about the employer's reckless or malicious state of mind with respect to racial

minorities, such a policy is not automatically a bar to the imposition of punitive

3

damages.”) (citation omitted).

4 Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F. 3d 794, 810-11 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, not only must the employer

5 show it has an anti-discrimination policy in place, it must also demonstrate that it has implemented the

6 policy in good faith. Passantino, 212 F.3d at 517. The purpose of Title VII would be “undermined if

7 those policies were not implemented and were allowed instead to serve only as a device to allow

8 employers to escape punitive damages for the discriminatory activities of managerial employees.” Id.

9

Under the Kolstad affirmative defense, defendants have the burden of proving that they had “an

10 adequate anti-[discrimination] policy that was implemented in good faith.” Winarto v. Toshiba America

11 Electronics Components, Inc., 274 F. 3d 1276, 1291 (9th Cir. 2001); citing Passantino, 212 F. 3d at

12 516-17. In opposing the motion, plaintiffs have produced excerpts from the depositions of seven of

13 defendants managers or former managers, all which arguably call into question defendants’ good faith in

14 implementing an anti-discrimination policy.1 Declaration of Lisa Cox, Dkt. # 203, Exhibits A through

15 F. These managers’ testimony indicates a lack of concern over what was essentially a workplace

16 segregated by sex, with an all-male Sales and Service position and an all-female Sales and

17 Administration position. Plaintiffs’ Opposition, Dkt. # 186, pp. 4-8. According to these managers,

18 there was no effort made to recruit women into the Sales and Service position, a position from which

19 they could be promoted to a managerial position. Id. It also appears there was no procedure in place

20 for reviewing hiring and recruiting practices to ensure compliance with the anti-discrimination policy.

21 Id.

22 1Defendants have moved to strike three of these deposition excerpts, from Chuck Swafford,
23 Doug Cox, and Steve Vondereau, as presented in violation of a discovery agreement between the
parties. That agreement addressed discovery when these proceedings were bifurcated into two stages, 24 liability and damages. Subsequently, defendants moved for separate trials on the claims of the
individuals and the claims of the EEOC. Dkt. # 204. The Court granted defendants’ motion. Dkt. # 25 313. Separating the proceedings into two trials based on plaintiffs necessarily did away with the
bifurcation of liability and damages proceedings, and the EEOC trial was scheduled to allow time for 26 discovery on damages. Dkt. # 323. As there is no longer a “Stage I” proceeding, the earlier agreement
between the parties on discovery no longer serves any purpose. In the interest of addressing the issues 27 put before it in this motion on the merits, the Court will DENY the motion to strike.

28 ORDER - 3

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 384 Filed 01/11/10 Page 4 of 4

1

In reply, defendants have provided different excerpts from the same depositions of six of the

2 same managers, together with two other depositions from higher-level managers, regarding defendants’

3 policies and procedures. Declaration of William Stafford, Dkt. # 207, Exhibits C through H. These

4 excerpts only serve to create an issue of material fact as to defendants’ good faith implementation of the

5 anti-discrimination policy. This is a question of fact that remains to be determined by the jury.

6

Summary judgment should be rendered only “if the pleadings, discovery and disclosure material

7 on file, and any affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is

8 entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). An issue is “genuine” if “a reasonable

9 jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” and a fact is material if it “might affect the outcome

10 of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The

11 evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

12

Here, the deposition excerpts offered by the parties create an issue of fact as to defendants’ good

13 faith, an issue which requires resolution by the jury. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment

14 on the EEOC’s claim for punitive damages is accordingly DENIED.

15

Dated this 11 day of January, 2010.

16

A

17

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER - 4

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 385 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

8

9

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF 13 WASHINGTON, INC., et al.,

CASE NO. C06-0045RSM
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIRING CLAIM

14

Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court for consideration of defendants’ motion for partial summary
16 judgment on plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC’s”) claim of sex
17 discrimination in hiring practices. Dkt. # 156. Plaintiffs have opposed the motion. The Court deems
18 oral argument on this motion unnecessary and, for the reasons set forth below shall deny the motion.
19 DISCUSSION
20 The parties are familiar with the facts of this case and the Court’s prior rulings, but they shall be
21 briefly summarized. The Court earlier granted defendants’ motion for separate trials on the claims of
22 the individual plaintiffs, Jennifer Strange and Magen Morris, and the claims of the EEOC. Dkt. ## 204,
23 313. The individual plaintiffs tried their case to the jury in November and won a verdict on their claim
24 of retaliation. Dkt. # 354. Defendants’ motion for a new trial on the individual plaintiffs’ claims of
25 retaliation and for punitive damages has been denied. Dkt. # 383. On the EEOC’s claims, the Court has
26 granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on promotion claims, and has denied a motion
27 for partial summary judgment as to punitive damages. Dkt. ## 312, 84. This motion remains to be
28

ORDER - 1

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 385 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 3

1 decided, and will determine whether the claims of the EEOC shall proceed to trial, now scheduled to

2 begin March 1, 2010. Dkt. # 323.

3

Defendants contend summary judgment is appropriate because plaintiff EEOC has no evidence

4 to support a claim of sex discrimination in hiring for the Sales and Service position. The EEOC’s claim

5 is based not on disparate impact, but upon disparate treatment, which requires proof of intent.

6 Defendants argue that plaintiffs “flawed statistical methodology” and “feeble anecdotal witness

7 evidence” cannot, as a matter of law, establish the requisite inference of intent to discriminate.

8 Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. # 156, p. 14.

9

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment on the hiring claim, the EEOC has

10 summarized the evidence with respect to twelve women who applied for positions in Sales and Service

11 and were passed over in favor of men. Plaintiff alleges these males were in every case less qualified

12 than the women who were competing for the same positions. Defendants, however, assert that the

13 EEOC has misrepresented and mischaracterized the qualifications of some of these women, and that the

14 EEOC has ignored the important question as to whether the hiring manager was actually informed of

15 these qualifications on the women’s employment applications. These objections, both as to the

16 representations made regarding the qualifications, and whether those qualifications were made known to

17 the hiring manager, create issues of fact to be determined by the jury.

18

Defendants also assert that the EEOC’s statistical evidence is filled with conceptual flaws, and

19 insufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate intent. Plaintiff’s expert witness Janice Madden, Ph.D.,

20 who performed an analysis of defendants’ hiring practices from 2004 to 2007, testified at deposition that

21 her analysis did not consider intent. Plaintiff responds to this argument by noting that Dr. Madden’s

22 original analysis indicated that the probability that the gender disparity in hiring that she found was due

23 to chance was approximately thirteen in one trillion. Plaintiff’s Opposition, Dkt. # 195, p. 8. Further,

24 following her deposition, she re-analyzed the data, and found that both the shortfall in number of women

25 hired, as well as the statistical significance of the numbers, both increased. Id.

26

The posture of this case has changed significantly since this motion and the response and reply

27 were filed. At the time this and defendants’ four other motions for partial summary judgment were

28 filed, the case was set for a trial on liability only on September 14, 2009. Dkt. # 123. One day prior to

ORDER - 2

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 385 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 3

1 the noting date for four of the summary judgment motions, on July 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to

2 separate the trials of the EEOC from the individual plaintiffs. Dkt. # 204. The Court granted

3 defendants’ motion over the objection of all plaintiffs, assigned the September 14, 2009 trial date to the

4 individual plaintiffs’ trial, and set November 2, 2009 for trial as to both liability and damages on the

5 EEOC claims. Dkt. # 313. The trial date was later continued to March 1, 2010, with a deadline for

6 expert reports set for October 2, 2009. Dkt. # 323. The parties have since that date twice stipulated to

7 extend the period for expert discovery, first to December 11, 2009, and then to January 8, 2010. Dkt. ##

8 358, 369. These extensions were directed toward accommodating the testimony of defendants’

9 identified expert Dr. Michael Sinclair, who as a government employee requires the permission of his

10 agency to testify. Dkt. ## 357, 369. However, the extensions would also necessarily allow additional

11 time for plaintiff’s expert to prepare rebuttal testimony. In light of these extensions and the new expert

12 testimony that has been developed, the Court cannot find, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s statistical

13 evidence is either flawed or insufficient. In addition, the Court finds that defendants’ motion to strike

14 the rebuttal and revised reports of Dr. Madden (presented in defendants’ reply, Dkt. # 212) is moot and

15 is accordingly DENIED.

16

CONCLUSION

17

Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the EEOC’s hiring claim is DENIED.

18 This case shall proceed to trial as scheduled on March 1, 2010. The deadline for completion of

19 mediation, currently set for January 15, 2010, shall be extended to February 12, 2010.

20

Under the current scheduling Order, motions in limine are due February 1, 2010. Dkt. # 323.

21 That date shall remain in effect, but the parties shall conform their motions in limine to the revised

22 Local Rules of this Court, adopted December 1, 2009. Those rules provide that, absent a showing of

23 good cause, each party’s motions in linime shall be filed as one motion, which shall be noted on the

24 Court’s calendar for the third Friday after filing. Local Rule CR 7(d)(4).

25

Dated this 12 day of January 2010.

26

A

27

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

ORDER - 3

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 1 of 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CASE NO. 2:06-cv-0045-RSM
11 COMMISSION

12

Plaintiff,

CONSENT DECREE

13

14

v.

15

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

18

I. INTRODUCTION

19

1. This action originated with discrimination charges brought by Magen Morris and

20 Jennifer Strange, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on
21 October 20, 2004. The charging parties alleged that Les Schwab: (a) failed to train and promote 22
them to management positions; (b) retaliated against and constructively discharged them; and (c)
23
failed to hire females for Sales & Service positions. The charging parties alleged that these acts
24 25 violated Title VII.

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 1

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 2 of 16

1

2. Based on these charges, the Commission filed this lawsuit on May 31, 2006, in

2 the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges

3 that Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of California, Inc., Les
4
Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana, Inc., Les Schwab Tire
5
Centers of Oregon, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of
6 7 Nevada, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah, Inc., Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington,
8 Inc., and Les Schwab Warehouse, Inc. (the “Les Schwab Companies” or “Les Schwab”) failed to

9 hire females for Sales & Service positions, failed to train females, and failed to promote females

10 to management positions. Les Schwab denied the EEOC’s claims. Subsequently, the Court

11 dismissed the training and promotion claims asserted in the charges and in the complaint. The
12
remaining individual claims of Ms. Morris and Ms. Strange were resolved in a separate
13
proceeding; thus the two charging parties are no longer part of the litigation to be resolved by
14
15 this Consent Decree ("Decree" herein).

16

3. The EEOC and Les Schwab want to conclude all claims arising out of the above

17 charges without expending further resources in contested litigation and therefore agree to entry

18 by the Court of this Decree. This Decree resolves all claims for attorneys fees and costs by all
19 parties.
20
II. NONADMISSION OF LIABILITY
21
4. This Decree is not an admission of wrongdoing or an adjudication or finding on
22
the merits of the case. Les Schwab expressly denies any wrongdoing or violation of Title VII.
23

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 2

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 3 of 16

1

III. SETTLEMENT SCOPE

2

5. This Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of the EEOC’s complaint.

3 This Decree does not affect the EEOC’s right to process, in accordance with standard

4
Commission procedures, other charges, if any, filed by individuals against the Les Schwab

5
Companies alleging violations of Title VII or any other statute enforced by the EEOC.
6

7

IV. CLASS MONETARY RELIEF

8

6. Class Settlement Fund Amount

9

Les Schwab shall pay the gross sum of $2,000,000.00 (“Class Fund”) in resolution of the

10 EEOC’s claims of hiring discrimination based on sex. This Class Fund amount shall constitute

11 the total payment by Les Schwab, including, without limitation, any and all costs of

12
administration, and any tax withholding such as FICA or FUTA. The EEOC shall reasonably
13
allocate a portion of the Class Fund to back pay consistent with federal law.
14

15

7. Class Fund Account

16

The Class Fund shall be deposited and maintained in a segregated account in the manner

17 described herein:

18

a. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date (which shall be the date of

19

entry of the Decree by the Court), Les Schwab shall establish and maintain a

20
segregated account, which shall be known as the “Class Fund Account.” Les
21

Schwab shall fund the Class Fund Account with the full amount of the Class Fund
22

23

within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date.

24

b. The Class Fund Account shall be an interest-bearing account in an established

25

financial institution selected by Les Schwab.

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 3

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 4 of 16

1

c. The Class Fund will be distributed by Les Schwab as determined by the

2

EEOC, including any distribution approved by the EEOC and necessary for

3

payment of administration costs. Under no circumstances may Les Schwab make

4
withdrawals or expenditures from the principal or interest of the Class Fund,

5
except as provided in this paragraph c and paragraph d below. Under no
6

7

circumstances shall commitments for payments from the principal or interest of

8

the Class Fund, for purposes allowed by this Consent Decree, exceed the amount

9

of funds available in the Class Fund.

10

d. Any remaining interest not necessary for the administration of the Class Fund

11

after all payments from the Fund have been made shall be retained by Les

12
Schwab. Any unclaimed principal of the Class Fund shall be donated to
13
Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Employment for Women.
14

15

8. Administration

16

The parties will agree on an Administrator to administer the class claim process. All fees

17 of the Administrator and any other expenses of the administration will be paid from the Class

18 Fund, except that Les Schwab will be responsible for issuing tax reporting forms at its own

19 expense. Pursuant to agreement between the EEOC and the Administrator, only reasonable fees
20
authorized by the EEOC can be incurred against the fund account.
21
9. Claim Process
22

23

a. Within thirty (30) days after entry of the Decree, Les Schwab will provide

24

EEOC with a Unicru spreadsheet identifying all females who submitted

25

applications for Sales & Service positions during the period from December 1,

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 4

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 5 of 16

1

2007 to entry of the Decree, and were not hired for a Sales & Service position.

2

The Unicru spreadsheet will include the following data fields for each such

3

applicant for periods prior to July 2009: name, address, social security number,

4
date of application, store number, whether interviewed, interview date, whether

5
offer extended, offer extended date, remove reason code value, removed date,
6

7

score, and ApplicationID. For periods from July 2009 through the Effective Date,

8

the Unicru spreadsheet will include the comparable data fields available in Unicru

9

Version 8. In addition, Les Schwab will produce phone number information for

10

applicants from Unicru if the added cost of doing so is de minimus. Les Schwab

11

will also provide an Infinium spreadsheet identifying all males hired into Sales &

12
Service positions during the period from December 1, 2007 to entry of the
13
Decree. The Infinium spreadsheet will include the following data for each such
14

15

hire: name, social security number, date of hire, and store number.

16

b. Based on the data provided under paragraph a above, and the dataset provided

17

previously in discovery, EEOC will determine potential class members.

18

c. Notice of settlement will only be sent to individuals EEOC has determined to

19

be potential class members under paragraph b. The description of the case as

20
reflected in the first paragraph of the attached draft Notice (Attachment A) will be
21

the description used in the final notice and in any other communications with
22

23

class members. The EEOC will provide a copy of the final Notice to Les Schwab.

24

The EEOC will make best efforts to ensure the Administrator will not reference

25

this case in its advertising or marketing materials. If any information about the

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 5

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 6 of 16

1

claims process is posted online, EEOC will determine the cost of ensuring that the

2

case name is not publicly available and afford Les Schwab the option to pay that

3

additional cost.

4
d. Determination of eligibility and claim share amount is entirely at the discretion

5
of the EEOC.
6

7

e. Les Schwab will issue final payment checks based on a single spreadsheet

8

identifying eligible class members and claim share amount.

9

V. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

10

10. The terms of this Decree are an injunction and operate as an injunction as to Les

11 Schwab, its officers, agents, managers, assistant managers and other supervisors and all human

12 resource professionals who provide advice and assistance to the foregoing individuals. In

13 ongoing recognition of its obligations under Title VII, Les Schwab agrees to continue the

14 policies and practices set forth below.

15 A. TRAINING AND AWARENESS PROGRAM

16

11. For the duration of this Decree Les Schwab will continue to provide training to all

17
employees in all company-owned stores as set forth below.
18
12. The objectives of this training are to: (1) convey Les Schwab’s commitment to
19

20 providing equal employment opportunities under laws against discrimination to all applicants

21 and employees, without regard to the gender of the applicant or employee; (2) provide

22 information and guidance to managers and employees on complying with laws against

23 discrimination, including Title VII; and (3) provide instruction on equal employment opportunity
24 issues, including preventing sex discrimination in hiring and promotion. 25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 6

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 7 of 16

1

13. It is the intention of Les Schwab to continue to provide EEO awareness to

2 management employees and its general workforce.

3

a. Les Schwab acknowledges that the effectiveness of its implementation of the

4
terms of this Decree is dependent on its workforce understanding that its efforts to

5
provide equal employment opportunities to all persons have the full commitment
6

7

of Les Schwab’s upper-management, including the Board of Directors, Chief

8

Executive Officer, and top Company officials. Within thirty (30) days after the

9

Court approves this Decree, Les Schwab will reaffirm to its workforce its

10

commitment to equal employment opportunity, to achieving a diverse workforce,

11

and to the furtherance of the Decree’s purpose. Within ten (10) days after Les

12
Schwab communicates its commitment to its workforce, it will certify to the
13
Commission its compliance with this paragraph, including the manner in which
14

15

the communication occurred.

16

b. During the term of this Decree, Les Schwab shall continue to provide training

17

on equal employment opportunity to all Regional Managers, Area Managers,

18

Store Managers, Assistant Managers, and other personnel, if any, who make store

19

hiring decisions, and human resources employees who support that process. The

20
training shall include the following topics: (1) federal, state and Company
21

prohibitions against unlawful discrimination, including sex discrimination, and
22

23

retaliation; (2) topics that will encourage equal employment in recruiting, hiring,

24

and promotion without engaging in sex discrimination and sex stereotyping; and

25

(3) Les Schwab’s efforts to recruit, hire, and maintain a diverse workforce. No

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 7

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 8 of 16

1

less than two (2) hours shall be devoted to training on these topics for each

2

participant within ninety (90) days following: (a) the date the Court approves this

3

Decree, and (b) on an annual basis thereafter throughout the term of the Decree.

4
c. Les Schwab shall continue to incorporate diversity training into its training for

5
executives, managers, and human resource associates.
6

7

14. Les Schwab understands that in order to carry out the objectives of this

8 Decree it must be recognized in local communities as an employer that supports and practices

9 equal employment opportunity. Therefore, within ninety (90) days after the Court approves this

10 Decree, Les Schwab will review its existing internal and external recruiting and hiring
11 documents (including materials on its external and internal websites) to confirm that they reflect 12
diverse images, including the presence of females in Sales & Service positions, and Les
13
Schwab's commitment to equal employment opportunity. Les Schwab will include the current
14 15 introductory statement (Attachment B) affixed to the book Les Schwab – Pride in Performance
16 whenever it is distributed by Les Schwab for any purpose. Within ten (10) days after Les

17 Schwab’s review has been completed, it will certify to the Commission its compliance with this

18 paragraph.
19 B. RECRUITMENT EFFORTS 20
15. Les Schwab will continue its recruitment efforts to increase the flow of female
21
applicants for Sales & Service positions. Those efforts will include the following:
22

23

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 8

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 9 of 16

1

a. In all recruiting and hiring materials, including but not limited to employment

2

applications, brochures, newspaper, radio, television, and internet advertisements,

3

and on its website, Les Schwab will state that “Les Schwab is an Equal

4
Opportunity Employer,” and will instruct store managers accordingly.

5
b. Les Schwab will continue to contact entities such as technical schools and
6

7

community colleges that may be sources of qualified female applicants for Sales

8

& Service positions. In connection with this, Les Schwab will select at least one

9

organization in each state in which it operates that promotes the employment of

10

women in non-traditional fields and will invite such organizations to link to Les

11

Schwab’s Web site.

12
c. Les Schwab will continue to participate in relevant job fairs in states where it
13
operates. One purpose of attending the job fairs will be to encourage qualified
14

15

females to apply for Sales & Service positions. Les Schwab will communicate its

16

commitment to developing and maintaining a diverse workforce and to its status

17

as an equal opportunity employer.

18 C. HIRING

19

16. During the term of this Decree, Les Schwab will make best efforts to hire females

20
into Sales & Service positions in proportion to their availability in the qualified applicant pool.
21

17. Les Schwab agrees to continue (1) the use of standard application materials for all
22

23 Sales & Service applicants through the electronic hiring process known as “Unicru”; and (2)

24 periodic review of all hiring procedures by Les Schwab’s Human Resources Department. Les

25 Schwab further agrees to notify and consult with the EEOC if the Unicru system is to be

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 9

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 10 of 16

1 discontinued or materially modified.

2 D. REPORTING, RECORD KEEPING AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW

3

18. Les Schwab shall maintain the following records for the term of this Decree or as

4
required by state or federal law, whichever is longer:

5
a. Applications for Sales & Service positions, including hard copies bearing
6

7

handwritten notes as well as electronic files maintained by third party vendor

8

(Kronos, Inc.);

9

b. A list of job fairs attended by Les Schwab pursuant to paragraph 15(c), and all

10

recruiting materials as referenced in Paragraph 15(a) above, including job

11

advertisements;

12
c. Copies of Les Schwab's hiring policies and procedures;
13
d. Copies of notifications to the organizations referenced in Paragraph 15(b);
14

15

e. Copies of centralized marketing campaign materials;

16

f. Documentation of employee training undertaken pursuant to paragraph 13b

17

including, but not limited to, materials used during the training and employee

18

participation records.

19

g. At any point during the term of this Decree, with reasonable notice, the

20
Commission may inspect and copy such documents and records required to be
21

maintained or created by the express terms of this Decree, or referred to by Les
22

23

Schwab to prepare its reports to the Commission.

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 10

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 11 of 16

1

19. Les Schwab will submit an initial report to the Commission concerning the

2 implementation of this Decree no later than 15 days after the expiration of the first six-month

3 period after the Court approves this Decree. Thereafter, reports will be submitted to the

4
Commission annually. Each report shall contain the information set forth below:

5
a. A list of the organizations Les Schwab has contacted pursuant to paragraph
6

7

15b, during the preceding reporting period.

8

b. A listing of all job fairs attended, in accordance with paragraph 15c including

9

the location held, during the preceding reporting period.

10

c. A spreadsheet containing all applicants for Sales & Service positions during

11

the preceding reporting period, including Unicru data fields for date of

12
application, sex, store number, and social security number.
13
d. A list of all hires into Sales & Service during the preceding reporting period,
14

15

including name, sex, date of hire, store number and social security number.

16

e. A listing of all training undertaken during the preceding reporting period in

17

accordance with paragraphs 11 and 13b, and a roster of participating employees.

18 E. NOTICE POSTING

19

20. For the pendency of the consent decree Les Schwab shall post a notice to

20
employees in each Les Schwab facility, attached hereto as Attachment C, informing them of this
21

settlement, its terms, and the company's commitment to compliance with federal laws relating to
22

23 equal employment opportunity.

24

VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

25

21. The Commission shall have the right to initiate an action pursuant to the Court’s

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 11

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 12 of 16

1 continuing jurisdiction for an unresolved dispute or for non-compliance with any provision of the

2 Decree, as follows:

3

a. If the EEOC believes that there is an issue to resolve, it shall promptly give

4
notice, in writing, to the company.

5
b. The parties shall promptly undertake efforts to resolve the areas of dispute or
6

7

alleged non-compliance.

8

c. If after 30 days the EEOC determines that efforts to resolve the matter have

9

failed, it shall notify Les Schwab in writing of such failure to resolve the matter

10

and may commence an action in the United States District Court to enforce the

11

terms of this Decree.

12
VII. DURATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE
13
22. This Consent Decree will become effective on the date approved and entered by
14

15 the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and it will remain in

16 effect for a period of four years. If the EEOC petitions the Court for violation of terms of the

17 Consent Decree, and the Court finds a violation, the Court may extend the duration of the

18 Decree.

19

VIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

20
23. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington shall
21

retain jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of the Consent Decree.
22

23

24 DATED this ___day of ____

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 12

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 13 of 16

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO
Regional Attorney
2

3

JOHN F. STANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney

4
DAMIEN A. LEE
5 Senior Trial Attorney

6 TERI L. HEALY 7 Senior Trial Attorney
8 MAY CHE
Trial Attorney
9

10 BY:

11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

12 Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400

13 Seattle, Washington 98104

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 13

JAMES L. LEE Acting General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel JEFFREY C. BANNON Assistant General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel 131 M Street NE Washington, D.C. 20507
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 14 of 16

1 BY:

Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth
2 JHollingsworth perkinscoie.com

3

Charles N. Eberhardt CEberhardt@perkinscoie.com

4 Chelsea D. Petersen
CDPetersen@perkinscoie.com

5 William B. Stafford

WStafford@perkinscoie.com
6 Perkins Coie LLP

7

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099

8 Telephone (206) 359-8000
Facsimile (206) 359-9000

9

10

11

BY: /s/ Kenneth J. Diamond Kenneth J. Diamond

12 WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1910

13 Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone (206) 676-8444
14 ken@winterbauer.com

15

16
Attorneys for Defendants
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 CONSENT DECREE 28 Page 14

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6885

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 15 of 16

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO 

Regional Attorney 

2 


3 


JOHN F. STANLEY 
 Supervisory Trial Attorney 


4 

DAMIEN A. LEE
5 Senior Trial Attorney

6 TERI L. HEALY 7 
 Senior Trial Attorney
8 
 MAYCHE

Trial Attorney 

9 


10 BY: 


1 1




EQUAL EMPLOYM COMMISSION 


12 
 Seattle Field Office 

909 First Avenue, Suite 400 


13 Seattle, Washington 98104 


14 
 Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC 15

16 


17 


18 


19 


20

21 


22 


23 


24 


25

26 


27 
 CONSENT DECREE 
 28 
 Page 13


JAMES L. LEE Acting General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel JEFFREY C. BANNON Assistant General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel 
 l31 M Street NE 
 Washington, D.C. 20507 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98104-1061 

(206) 220-6885 


Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 449 Filed 03/09/10 Page 16 of 16

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 1 of 45
CLOSED, CONSOL, JURYDEMAND, PROTO
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−00045−RSM

Strange et al v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc et al Assigned to: Judge Ricardo S Martinez Cause: 28:1332 Diversity−Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/11/2006 Date Terminated: 03/10/2010 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jennifer Strange

represented by Lewis Lynn Ellsworth GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP (TAC) 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WA 98401 253−620−6500 Fax: FAX 1−253−620−6565 Email: lellsworth@gth−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Warren E Martin GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL MALANCA PETERSON &DAHEIM PO BOX 1157 TACOMA, WA 98401−1157 253−620−6500 Fax: FAX 1−253−620−6565 Email: wmartin@gth−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Walter Beck GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP (TAC) 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WA 98401 253−620−6500 Email: jbeck@gth−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Magen Morris on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Lewis Lynn Ellsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Warren E Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Walter Beck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 2 of 45
John Freeman Stanley EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (WA) SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104−1061 206−220−6896 Fax: 206−220−6911 Email: JOHN.STANLEY@EEOC.GOV LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Ann Cox U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 − 1st AVE SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206−220−6890 Fax: 206−220−6911 Email: lisa.cox@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 02/11/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Wesley Katahira EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104−1061 206−220−6883 Fax: 206−220−6851 Email: wesley.katahira@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Flores EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104−1061 206−220−6883 Email: carmen.flores@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 10/26/2006
Damien Anthony Lee EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (WA) SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104−1061 206−220−6883 Fax: FAX 220−6911 Email: damien.lee@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey C Bannon EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (DC) CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM

As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 3 of 45
1801 L ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20507 202−663−4756 Email: jeffrey.bannon@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
May R Che US EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (WA) 909 1ST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206−220−6919 Email: may.che@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Brye Powell US EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (WA) 909 1ST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206−220−6892 Email: molly.kucuk@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 06/18/2009
Raymond T Cheung US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 350 THE EMBARCADERO STE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105−1260 415−625−5649 Email: raymond.cheung@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teri L Healy EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104−1061 206−220−6883 Fax: FAX 220−6911 Email: teri.healy@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren E Martin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William R. Tamayo US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 350 THE EMBARCADERO STE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105−1260 415−625−5645 Fax: 415−625−5657 Email: william.tamayo@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 4 of 45

Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc

represented by Charles N Eberhardt PERKINS COIE (BELLEVUE) 10885 NE 4th ST STE 700 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 425−453−6980 Fax: FAX 425−450−7467 Email: ceberhardt@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth PERKINS COIE 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101−3099 206−583−8888 Fax: FAX 583−8500 Email: JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chelsea D Petersen PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101−3099 206−359−3993 Email: cdpetersen@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth J Diamond WINTERBAUER &DIAMOND 1200 FIFTH AVE STE 1700 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206−676−8440 Email: mail@winterbauerdiamond.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William B. Stafford PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101−3099 206−359−6217 Email: WStafford@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc

represented by Charles N Eberhardt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chelsea D Petersen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 5 of 45

Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc TERMINATED: 07/18/2006
Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc TERMINATED: 07/18/2006
Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc TERMINATED: 07/18/2006

Kenneth J Diamond (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Stafford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles N Eberhardt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J Diamond (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Stafford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles N Eberhardt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J Diamond (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Stafford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles N Eberhardt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J Diamond (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Stafford

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 6 of 45

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc

represented by Charles N Eberhardt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chelsea D Petersen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth J Diamond (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William B. Stafford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc TERMINATED: 07/18/2006

represented by Charles N Eberhardt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth J Diamond (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William B. Stafford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc TERMINATED: 07/18/2006

represented by Charles N Eberhardt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth J Diamond (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William B. Stafford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 7 of 45

Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc TERMINATED: 07/18/2006
Defendant Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc

represented by Charles N Eberhardt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J Diamond (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Stafford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles N Eberhardt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chelsea D Petersen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth J Diamond (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Stafford (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/11/2006
03/08/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendant(s) Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc (Summons(es) issued) (Receipt # 802355), filed by Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(DJ) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc mailed on 2/10/2006; Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc mailed on 2/10/2006; Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc mailed on 2/10/2006; Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc mailed on 2/10/2006; Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc mailed on 2/10/2006; Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc mailed on 2/10/2006; Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc mailed on 2/10/2006; Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc mailed on 2/10/2006; Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc mailed on 2/10/2006; Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc mailed on 2/10/2006 (Ellsworth, Lewis) (Entered: 03/08/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 8 of 45

04/10/2006
04/10/2006
04/10/2006 04/10/2006
04/10/2006 04/24/2006 04/24/2006 04/24/2006 05/05/2006
05/15/2006
05/19/2006 06/13/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006

3 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kenneth J Diamond on behalf of Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc (Diamond, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth on behalf of Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
5 ANSWER to Complaint by Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc.(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
6 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. Noting Date 5/5/2006. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
7 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 6 MOTION to Dismiss (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
8 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 6 MOTION to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
9 DECLARATION of Warren Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 6 MOTION to Dismiss (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
10 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. Noting Date 5/19/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
11 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 6 MOTION to Dismiss (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
12 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 10 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
13 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, TO RESPONSE to 10 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
14 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, TO RESPONSE to 10 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Ellsworth, Lewis) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
15 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Granting Leave to Amend and Striking Motion to Dismiss by parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Diamond, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
16 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER To Consolidate Cases and Order by parties. (Diamond, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 9 of 45

07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/17/2006 07/18/2006 07/18/2006 07/26/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/07/2006 08/29/2006 08/30/2006 08/30/2006 09/05/2006 09/12/2006 09/25/2006
10/26/2006

17 ORDER striking 6 Motion to Dismiss as moot and granting 10 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS, ) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
18 ORDER to Consolidate re 16 Stipulation to consolidate cases C06−45RSM and C06−761MAT by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS, ) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Molly P Kucuk on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
20 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) all defendants with JURY DEMAND, filed by Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris.(Ellsworth, Lewis) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 20 Amended Complaint. (Ellsworth, Lewis) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
22 ANSWER to Complaint of EEOC by Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc.(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
23 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 8/29/2006.Initial Disclosure Deadline is 9/5/2006. Joint Status Report due by 9/12/2006; by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (LC, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
24 COMPLAINT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, against defendant(s) Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc (Summons(es) issued) (Receipt # fee waived), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
25 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc.(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
26 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND 26(f) CONFERENCE DEADLINE UNTIL AUGUST 30, 2006 by parties. (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
27 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR FRCP 26(f) CONFERENCE re 26 Stipulation : FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 8/30/2006, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (LT, ) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
28 (DUPLICATE ENTRY)ORDER by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. The Court extends the FRCP 26f Conference Deadline to 8/30/2006.(CL, ) Modified on 8/30/2006 (CL, ). (Entered: 08/30/2006)
Reset Deadlines (per parties' request): Initial Disclosure Deadline is 9/7/2006. (LC, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
29 JOINT STATUS REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN filed by all parties. Est. Trial Days: 20 by Plaintiffs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
30 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; Length of Trial: *20 days*. Jury Trial is set for 2/25/2008 at 09:00 AM before Hon. Ricardo S Martinez. Joinder of Parties due by 2/1/2007; Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 8/29/2007; Motions due by 9/28/2007; Discovery completed by 10/29/2007; Dispositive motions due by 11/27/2007; 39.1 mediation to be completed by 1/11/2008; Motions in Limine due by 1/28/2008; Pretrial Order due by 2/13/2008; Trial briefs to be submitted by 2/20/2008; Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 2/20/2008; by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (LC, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
31 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lisa Ann Cox is substituted as counsel for Plaintiff. Attorney Carmen Flores terminated. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 10/26/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 10 of 45

12/05/2006 12/11/2006 02/01/2007 02/02/2007 02/15/2007 03/02/2007
03/20/2007 03/22/2007
05/24/2007 06/11/2007 06/20/2007 06/27/2007 12/03/2007
12/07/2007

32 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER (PROTECTIVE ORDER) by parties. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
33 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
34 Agreed Stipulated MOTION TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PARTY DEFENDANTS by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Noting Date 2/1/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit Proposed Plaintiff EEOC First Amended Complaint# 3 Certificate of Service)(Stanley, John) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
35 ORDER granting 34 Stipulated Motion to join additional party defendants by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS, ) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
36 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) all defendants with JURY DEMAND, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Stanley, John) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
37 ANSWER to Amended Complaint of EEOC by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc.(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
38 Agreed MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order On Agreed Motion to Continue Pretrail and Trial Dates)Noting Date 3/20/2007.(Stanley, John) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
39 ORDER granting 38 Agreed MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES ; Jury Trial is set for 8/25/2008 at 09:00 AM before Hon. Ricardo S Martinez.,Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 2/29/2008,Motions due by 3/28/2008,Discovery completed by 4/28/2008,Dispositive motions due by 5/27/2008,Motions in Limine due by 7/28/2008,Pretrial Order due by 8/13/2008,Trial briefs to be submitted by 8/20/2008,Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 8/20/2008 by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS, ) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
40 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Warren E Martin for Plaintiffs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris from 06/12/07 to 07/02/07. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
41 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Lewis Lynn Ellsworth for Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris from 06/18/07 to 07/08/07. (Ellsworth, Lewis) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
42 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel John Freeman Stanley for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Stanley, John) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Damien Anthony Lee on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
44 MOTION for Extension of Time for Expert Report by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stanley Decl. in Support of EEOC's Motion to Enlarge Time for Expert Report# 2 Attach. A to Stanley Decl. in Support of Motion to Enlarge Time for Expert Report# 3 Exhibit Lee Declaration in Support of Motion to Enlarge Time for Expert Report# 4 Attach A to DAL Decl# 5 Attach B to DAL Decl# 6 Attach C to DAL Decl# 7 Attach D to DAL Decl# 8 Attach E to DAL Decl# 9 Proposed Order # 10 Certificate of Service)Noting Date 12/10/2007.(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
45 WITHDRAWAL of Motion re 44 MOTION for Extension of Time for Expert Report ; by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damien)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 11 of 45

12/10/2007 12/12/2007
12/26/2007 02/14/2008 02/14/2008 02/14/2008 02/14/2008 03/28/2008
03/28/2008
03/28/2008
03/29/2008

(Entered: 12/07/2007)
46 Second Stipulated MOTION to Continue Pretrial and Trial Dates by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Noting Date 12/10/2007.(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
47 ORDER granting 46 Stipulated Motion to continue pretrial and trial dates: 20 day Jury Trial is set for 10/27/2008 at 09:00 AM before Hon. Ricardo S Martinez.,Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 5/16/2008,Motions due by 6/6/2008,Discovery completed by 6/27/2008,Dispositive motions due by 7/25/2008,Motions in Limine due by 9/26/2008,Pretrial Order due by 10/8/2008,Trial briefs to be submitted by 10/14/2008,Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 10/14/2008 by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS, ) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
48 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Damien Anthony Lee on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
49 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service # 2 Proposed Order)Noting Date 4/11/2008.(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
50 DECLARATION of Magen Morris filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 49 MOTION to Certify Class (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
51 DECLARATION of Jennifer Strange filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 49 MOTION to Certify Class (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
52 DECLARATION of Warren Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 49 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
53 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 49 MOTION to Certify Class. Oral Argument Requested. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
54 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 49 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−pp 5−22# 2 Exhibit B−pp 23−73# 3 Exhibit B−pp 74−118# 4 Exhibit B−pp 119−159# 5 Exhibit B−pp 160−179# 6 Exhibit C−pp 180−211# 7 Exhibit D − pp 212−217# 8 Exhibit E − pp 218−247# 9 Exhibit F − pp 248−263# 10 Exhibit G − pp 264−290# 11 Exhibit H − pp 291−292)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
55 DECLARATION of Jodie W. Hueske filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 49 MOTION to Certify Class (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
56 PRAECIPE re 53 Response to Motion, for Class Certification by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc.

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 12 of 45

03/31/2008 04/11/2008 04/11/2008 04/11/2008 05/06/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/12/2008
05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/27/2008
05/27/2008

(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/29/2008)
Attorney Chelsea D Petersen for Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc added per 53 Response. (KN, ) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
57 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, TO RESPONSE to 49 MOTION to Certify Class (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
58 Supplemental DECLARATION of Warren Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 49 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 58 Declaration, 57 Reply to Response to Motion for Class Certification. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
60 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time (Third Agreed Motion to Continue Pretrial and Trial Dates) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/6/2008; (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
61 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 60 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time (Third Agreed Motion to Continue Pretrial and Trial Dates). (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
62 ORDER denying as untimely 49 Motion to Certify Class by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(MKB) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
63 ORDER granting 60 Motion for Extension of Time; ( Jury Trial is set for 5/18/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S Martinez., Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 9/26/2008;, Motions due by 10/24/2008;, Discovery completed by 11/28/2008;, Dispositive motions due by 1/2/2009;, Motions in Limine due by 3/13/2009;, Pretrial Order due by 4/10/2009;, Trial briefs to be submitted by 4/17/2009;, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 4/17/2009; ) by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS, ) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
64 Second MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service) Noting Date 5/30/2008; (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
65 MOTION to Dismiss Claims Under Oregon Law by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/30/2008; (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
66 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Amended to Include Exhibit) by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service) Noting Date 5/30/2008; (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
67 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 66 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Amended to Include Exhibit). (Eberhardt, Charles) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
68 DECLARATION of Charles N. Eberhardt filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 66 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Amended to Include Exhibit) (Eberhardt, Charles) (Entered: 05/27/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 13 of 45

05/30/2008 06/16/2008 08/08/2008 09/18/2008
09/25/2008 09/25/2008
09/25/2008
09/25/2008
10/01/2008 10/06/2008 10/06/2008 10/06/2008 10/06/2008

69 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, TO RESPONSE to 66 Second MOTION to Certify Class (Amended to Include Exhibit) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
70 ORDER granting plaintiffs' 65 Motion for voluntary dismissal of claims under Oregon law by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
71 ORDER denying 66 Second Motion to Certify Class by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
72 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. Oral Argument Requested. Noting Date 10/10/2008 (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2008)
73 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/10/2008 (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
74 AFFIDAVIT of Damien A Lee re 73 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attach A to Lee Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Attach B to Lee Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Attach C to Lee Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Attach D to Lee Declaration)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
75 MOTION to Sever by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. Noting Date 10/10/2008 (Stafford, William) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
76 DECLARATION of Charles N. Eberhardt filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 75 MOTION to Sever (Stafford, William) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
77 MOTION to Amend Complaint by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Black−Lined Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service) Noting Date 10/10/2008 (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
78 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 75 MOTION to Sever. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
79 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 72 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
80 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 75 MOTION to Sever. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
81 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 73 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery. Oral Argument Requested. (Stafford, William) (Entered: 10/06/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 14 of 45

10/06/2008
10/07/2008
10/09/2008 10/09/2008 10/09/2008 10/09/2008 10/10/2008 10/10/2008
10/10/2008
10/20/2008 10/24/2008
10/24/2008

82 DECLARATION of Charles N. Eberhardt re 81 Response to Motion,, to Bifurcate by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Stafford, William) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
83 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 77 MOTION to Amend Complaint. (Stafford, William) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
84 MOTION to Seal One Exhibit in Support of EEOC's Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/9/2008 (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
85 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, TO RESPONSE to 73 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
86 DECLARATION of Damien Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 73 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F to Lee Declaration in Suppport of Reply, # 2 Errata G to Lee Declaration in Support of Reply)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
88 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit E to Declaration of Damien Lee by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 84 MOTION to Seal One Exhibit in Support of EEOC's Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery. (MD) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
87 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, TO RESPONSE to 77 MOTION to Amend Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
89 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 72 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Stafford, William) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
90 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 75 MOTION to Sever (Stafford, William) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
91 ORDER granting 84 Motion to file one exhibit in support of bifurcation under seal by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
92 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff EEOC by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/14/2008 (Stafford, William) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
93 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 15 of 45

10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008
11/10/2008
11/10/2008
11/10/2008

Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 92 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff EEOC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−G, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits H−M)(Stafford, William) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
94 MOTION to Compel by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/14/2008 (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
95 AFFIDAVIT of Janice Madden filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 94 MOTION to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Janice Madden, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Declaration of Janice Madden)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
96 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 94 MOTION to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Lisa Cox, # 2 Exhibit B to Declaration of Lisa Cox)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
97 DECLARATION of Damien Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 94 MOTION to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Damien Lee)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
98 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendant Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. Noting Date 11/28/2008 (Stafford, William) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
99 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth filed by Defendant Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc re 98 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Stafford, William) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
100 DECLARATION of Corey Parks filed by Defendant Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc re 98 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Stafford, William) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
101 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 92 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff EEOC. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
102 DECLARATION of Damien A. Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 92 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff EEOC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to D Lee Declaration in Support of EEOC's Opposition, # 2 Exhibit B to Declaration of D Lee In Support of EEOC Opposition, # 3 Exhibit D to Declaration of D Lee in Support of EEOC Opposition, # 4 Exhibit E to Declaration of D Lee in Support of EEOC Opposition)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
103 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 94 MOTION to Compel. Oral Argument Requested. (Stafford, William) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
104 DECLARATION of Charles N. Eberhardt re 103 Response to Motion, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Stafford, William) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
105 EXHIBIT [Corrected Ex. B] re 102 Declaration, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 16 of 45

11/10/2008
11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/14/2008
11/14/2008
11/17/2008 11/18/2008 11/24/2008 11/24/2008 11/24/2008 11/24/2008
11/24/2008

106 ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS − denying 72 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part 73 Motion to Bifurcate; denying 75 Motion to Sever; granting 77 Motion to Amend. Counsel is directed to e−file their Amended Complaint, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(MD) Modified on 11/12/2008−MAILED COPY OF ORDER TO ATTORNEY JEFFREY C. BANNON −WHO HAS NOT SIGNED UP FOR ELECTRONIC FILING−MAILED REGISTRATION FORM (MD). (Entered: 11/12/2008)
107 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, TO RESPONSE to 94 MOTION to Compel (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
108 DECLARATION of Damien Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 94 MOTION to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Lee Declaration, Reply)(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
109 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 94 MOTION to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Cox Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B to Cox Decl., # 3 Exhibit C to Cox. Decl.)(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
110 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 92 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff EEOC (Stafford, William) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
111 DECLARATION of Charles N. Eberhardt re 110 Reply to Response to Motion,, to Compel by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Stafford, William) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
112 PRAECIPE to attach document (Reply) revised certificate of service re 107 Reply to Response to Motion by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
113 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) all defendants with JURY DEMAND, filed by Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 11/26/2008 (per request/agreement of parties). (LC) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
114 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 98 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
115 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 98 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Oral Argument Requested. (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
116 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 98 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Cox Decl., EEOC Opposition, # 2 Exhibit B to Cox Decl, EEOC Opposition, # 3 Exhibit C to Cox Decl, EEOC Opposition, # 4 Exhibit D to Cox Decl., EEOC Opposition, # 5 Exhibit F to Cox Decl., EEOC Opposition, # 6 Exhibit G to Cox Decl., EEOC Opposition, # 7 Exhibit H to Cox Decl., EEOC Opposition, # 8 Exhibit I to Cox Decl., EEOC Opposition)(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
117 EXHIBIT E re 116 Declaration,, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 11/24/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 17 of 45

11/26/2008 11/28/2008 12/03/2008
12/05/2008 01/21/2009 01/22/2009
01/22/2009 02/04/2009 03/09/2009 04/17/2009 04/17/2009 05/04/2009 05/04/2009 05/04/2009 05/04/2009 05/07/2009

118 STATUS REPORT (Second Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
119 REPLY, filed by Defendant Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, TO RESPONSE to 98 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Stafford, William) (Entered: 11/28/2008)
120 ANSWER to 113 Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc.(Stafford, William) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
121 ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff EEOC's 94 Motion to Compel by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
122 ORDER by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. Motion for summary judgment by defendant Warehouse is GRANTED as to liability under Title VII, and DENIED as to liability under the Washington Law Against.(CL). (cc: atty J. Bannon). (Entered: 01/21/2009)
123 REVISED ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES (STAGE I−Liability); Length of Trial: *20 days*. Jury Trial is set for 9/14/2009 at 9:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. Motions due by 4/17/2009, Discovery completed by 5/18/2009, Dispositive motions due by 6/16/2009, 39.1 mediation to be completed by 7/31/2009, Motions in Limine due by 8/17/2009, Pretrial Order due by 9/2/2009, Trial briefs to be submitted by 9/9/2009, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 9/9/2009, by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (LW) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
124 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND STRIKING MOTION TO COMPEL 92 ; Jury Trial is set for 9/14/2009 before Judge Ricardo S Martinez by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
125 MOTION for Reconsideration re 122 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) Noting Date 2/4/2009, (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
126 ORDER denying plaintiff EEOC's 125 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
127 MOTION to Compel by Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc. Noting Date 5/8/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
128 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth filed by Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc re 127 MOTION to Compel (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
129 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 127 MOTION to Compel. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
130 DECLARATION of Magen Morris filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 127 MOTION to Compel (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
131 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 127 MOTION to Compel (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
132 ERRATA re 131 Declaration by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
133 MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service) Noting Date 5/14/2009, (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 18 of 45

05/08/2009 05/11/2009 05/14/2009 05/14/2009 05/26/2009 05/28/2009
05/28/2009
05/28/2009
06/09/2009 06/11/2009 06/11/2009
06/15/2009
06/15/2009 06/15/2009

134 REPLY, filed by Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, TO RESPONSE to 127 MOTION to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
135 RESPONSE, by Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, to 133 MOTION for Protective Order. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
136 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, TO RESPONSE to 133 MOTION for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
137 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 133 MOTION for Protective Order (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
138 Supplemental DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 133 MOTION for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/19/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
140 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth in Support filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
141 DECLARATION of Jodie W. Hueske in Support filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
142 ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER granting in part and denying in part dfts' 127 Motion to Compel; striking plaintiff's 133 Motion for Protective Order by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
143 MOTION to Exclude THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH S. LAKIS AND MICHAEL SINCLAIR by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Oral Argument Requested. Noting Date 6/26/2009, (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
144 DECLARATION of Damien A. Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 143 MOTION to Exclude THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH S. LAKIS AND MICHAEL SINCLAIR (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
145 MOTION to Seal EEOC's Unopposed Motion to File Exs in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim Under Seal by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/15/2009, (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
146 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
147 DECLARATION of Magen Morris filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 19 of 45

06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009
06/15/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009
06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009

148 DECLARATION of Jennifer Strange filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
149 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
150 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
151 DECLARATION of Damien A Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 13, # 2 Exhibit 14, # 3 Errata 15, # 4 Exhibit 16, # 5 Exhibit 17, # 6 Exhibit 18, # 7 Exhibit 19, # 8 Exhibit 20, # 9 Exhibit 21, # 10 Exhibit 22, # 11 Exhibit 23, # 12 Exhibit 24, # 13 Exhibit 25, # 14 Exhibit 26, # 15 Exhibit 27, # 16 Exhibit 28, # 17 Exhibit 29)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
Declaration of Lisa Cox filed by EEOC under seal in paper format on 6/15/09 − clerk notified counsel of the need to file document electronically. (RS) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
152 PRAECIPE re 151 Declaration,, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 16, # 2 Exhibit 20, # 3 Exhibit 26)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
153 SEALED DOCUMENT/DECLARATION OF LISA COX by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 145 MOTION to Seal EEOC's Unopposed Motion to File Exs in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim Under Seal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 30, # 14 Exhibit 31, # 15 Exhibit 32, # 16 Exhibit 33)(Cox, Lisa) Modified on 6/19/2009 to add text (RS). (Entered: 06/16/2009)
154 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Punitive Damages Claim by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/10/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
155 DECLARATION of Kenneth J. Diamond filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 154 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Punitive Damages Claim (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/10/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
157 DECLARATION of Jodie W. Hueske filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
158 DECLARATION of Peter Nickerson, Ph.D. filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 20 of 45

06/16/2009
06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009
06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009
06/16/2009 06/17/2009 06/18/2009

159 DECLARATION of Kenneth J. Diamond filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F1, # 7 Exhibit F2, # 8 Exhibit F3, # 9 Exhibit F4, # 10 Exhibit F5, # 11 Exhibit F6, # 12 Exhibit F7, # 13 Exhibit F8, # 14 Exhibit F9, # 15 Exhibit F10, # 16 Exhibit F11, # 17 Exhibit F12, # 18 Exhibit F13, # 19 Exhibit F14, # 20 Exhibit F15, # 21 Exhibit G, # 22 Exhibit H, # 23 Exhibit I, # 24 Appendix Page 263)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/10/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
161 DECLARATION of Jodie W. Hueske filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
162 DECLARATION of Kenneth J. Diamond filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/10/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
164 DECLARATION of Jodie W. Hueske filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
165 DECLARATION of Kenneth J. Diamond filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
166 ORDER denying plaintiff's 145 Motion to Seal by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
167 ERRATA re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
168 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Teri L Healy on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 21 of 45

06/18/2009 06/19/2009 06/19/2009
06/19/2009
06/19/2009
06/22/2009 06/22/2009 06/22/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009

169 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Molly P Kucuk for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
170 NOTICE of Filing Exhibit A to Supplemental Declaration of Jodie W. Hueske In Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on EEOC's Promotion Claim in Paper or Physical Form with the Clerk's Office by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
171 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
172 DECLARATION of Jodie W. Hueske re 171 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
173 DECLARATION of Chelsea D. Petersen re 171 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F, # 2 Exhibit G−I)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
174 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, to 143 MOTION to Exclude THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH S. LAKIS AND MICHAEL SINCLAIR. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
175 NOTICE of Intent to File Surreply re 171 Reply to Response to Motion,, ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
176 DECLARATION of JEFFREY A. HOLLINGSWORTH filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 143 MOTION to Exclude THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH S. LAKIS AND MICHAEL SINCLAIR (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
177 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A SURREPLY ; filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
178 APPLICATION/MOTION for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Related to June 6, 2009 Order by Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc . (Stafford, William) Modified on 6/24/2009 to change into a motion (RS). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
179 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford re 178 Application by Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Stafford, William) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
180 DECLARATION of Kenneth J. Diamond re 178 Application by Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc. (Stafford, William) (Entered: 06/23/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 22 of 45

06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 07/06/2009
07/06/2009 07/06/2009
07/06/2009 07/06/2009 07/06/2009 07/06/2009 07/06/2009 07/06/2009

181 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, TO RESPONSE to 143 MOTION to Exclude THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH S. LAKIS AND MICHAEL SINCLAIR (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
182 SURREPLY filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (to Defendants' Motion to Strike, contained in Defendants' Reply) (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
183 DECLARATION of Damien A. Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 6, Lee Decl. re Surreply)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
184 SURREPLY filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
185 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 139 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
186 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 154 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Punitive Damages Claim. Counsel re−filed declaration as a separate document. See document 188 . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lis Cox in Support of EEOC's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Punitive Damages Claim, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Ex. C, # 5 Exhibit Ex. D, # 6 Exhibit Ex. E, # 7 Exhibit Ex. F, # 8 Exhibit Ex. G) (Cox, Lisa) Modified on 7/7/2009 (JJT). (Entered: 07/06/2009)
187 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 154 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Punitive Damages Claim. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
188 SEALED Please see redacted document 203 DECLARATION of Lisa A. Cox re 186 Response to Motion,, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C, # 4 Exhibit Ex. D, # 5 Exhibit Ex. E, # 6 Exhibit Ex. F, # 7 Exhibit Ex. G)(Cox, Lisa) Modified on 7/9/2009 (KN). (Entered: 07/06/2009)
189 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
190 DECLARATION of Jennifer Strange filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
191 DECLARATION of Lewis L. Ellsworth filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims, 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
192 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
193 DECLARATION of Magen Morris filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
194 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims, 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/06/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 23 of 45

07/06/2009 07/06/2009 07/06/2009 07/06/2009
07/07/2009 07/08/2009
07/08/2009

195 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
196 SEALED Please see redacted document 201 . DECLARATION of Damien A Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit B (table), # 4 Exhibit C (table), # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit M−2, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O)(Lee, Damien) Modified on 7/9/2009 (JJT). (Entered: 07/06/2009)
197 SEALED Please see redacted document 202 . EXHIBIT P re 196 Declaration,, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q, # 2 Exhibit R, # 3 Exhibit S, # 4 Exhibit T, # 5 Exhibit U, # 6 Exhibit V, # 7 Exhibit W, # 8 Exhibit X, # 9 Exhibit Y, # 10 Exhibit Z, # 11 Exhibit AA, # 12 Exhibit BB, # 13 Exhibit CC, # 14 Exhibit DD, # 15 Exhibit EE, # 16 Exhibit FF, # 17 Exhibit GG)(Lee, Damien) Modified on 7/9/2009 (JJT). (Entered: 07/06/2009)
198 SEALED Please see redacted document 200 . DECLARATION of Teri Healy filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Errata 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Errata 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68)(Healy, Teri) Modified on 7/9/2009 (JJT). (Entered: 07/06/2009)
199 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO COURT'S JUNE 6 2009 ORDER. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
200 REDACTION to 198 Declaration,,,,, of Teri Healy by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68)(Healy, Teri) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
201 REDACTION to Dkt#196 by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit B1 Table, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G − Pt1, # 9 Exhibit G Part 2, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Errata I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M1, # 16 Errata M 2, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O)(Lee,

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 24 of 45

07/08/2009 07/09/2009 07/09/2009 07/10/2009 07/10/2009 07/10/2009
07/10/2009 07/10/2009 07/10/2009

Damien) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
202 REDACTION to Dkt# 197 by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q, # 2 Exhibit R 1, # 3 Exhibit R 2, # 4 Exhibit S, # 5 Exhibit T, # 6 Exhibit U, # 7 Errata V, # 8 Exhibit W 1, # 9 Exhibit W 2, # 10 Exhibit X, # 11 Exhibit Y, # 12 Exhibit Z, # 13 Exhibit AA, # 14 Exhibit BB, # 15 Errata CC, # 16 Errata DD, # 17 Exhibit EE, # 18 Exhibit FF, # 19 Exhibit GG)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
203 REDACTION to 188 Declaration (non motion), Declaration (non motion) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
204 MOTION for separate trials by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/24/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
205 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, TO RESPONSE to 178 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Stafford, William) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
206 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 154 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Punitive Damages Claim (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
207 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 154 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Punitive Damages Claim (Attachments: # 1 SEALED Exhibit A, pp 5−10, # 2 Exhibit B, pp 11−16, # 3 SEALED Exhibit c, pp 17−24, # 4 SEALED Exhibit D, pp 25−35, # 5 Exhibit E, pp 36−43, # 6 Exhibit F, pp 45−51, # 7 Exhibit G, pp 52−66, # 8 SEALED Exhibit H, pp 67−75)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) Modified on 7/14/2009 to seal unredacted exhibits, 217 redacted exhibits refiled on 7/13/09(ELS). (Entered: 07/10/2009)
208 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
209 DECLARATION of Douglas Mowbray filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Magen Morris' Claims (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
210 MOTION to Seal Diamond Declaration and Medical Records of Magen Morris by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/10/2009,

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 25 of 45

07/10/2009 07/10/2009
07/10/2009
07/10/2009 07/10/2009 07/10/2009 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/14/2009 07/14/2009 07/14/2009 07/15/2009 07/15/2009

(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
211 SEALED DOCUMENT Declaration of Kenneth Diamond by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc re 210 MOTION to Seal Diamond Declaration and Medical Records of Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, pp 6−7, # 2 Exhibit B, pp 8−20)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
212 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
213 DECLARATION of Chelsea D. Petersen re 212 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
214 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, TO RESPONSE to 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
215 DECLARATION of Ken Diamond filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C, # 2 Exhibit D−F)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
216 DECLARATION of Britten filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
217 REDACTION to 207 Declaration,,, Exhbit A by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit H)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
218 NOTICE of Intent to File Surreply Pursuant to LR 7(g) re 212 Reply to Response to Motion,, ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
219 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A SURREPLY re 205 Reply to Response to Motion ; filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
220 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A SURREPLY re 214 Reply to Response to Motion ; filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
221 NOTICE intent to file a surreply re 206 Reply to Response to Motion,, ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
222 SURREPLY filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Jennifer Strange's Claims (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
223 SURREPLY filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 178 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 26 of 45

07/17/2009 07/17/2009 07/17/2009 07/17/2009
07/17/2009 07/20/2009 07/20/2009 07/24/2009 07/24/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 08/06/2009
08/06/2009
08/06/2009

224 SURREPLY filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 154 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Punitive Damages Claim (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
225 MOTION to Seal Exhibits by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Unopposed Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal) Noting Date 7/17/2009, (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
226 SURREPLY filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
227 DECLARATION of Damien A Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 156 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Hiring Claim (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
230 SEALED DOCUMENT (3 DVDs/Exhibits by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in support of 226 Surreply. (DVD's sent to chambers) (CL) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
228 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 204 MOTION for separate trials. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
229 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 204 MOTION for separate trials. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
231 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, TO RESPONSE to 204 MOTION for separate trials (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
232 DECLARATION of WILLIAM B. STAFFORD re 231 Reply to Response to Motion, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
233 ORDER granting 210 Motion for order sealing Diamond declaration and medical records of plaintiff Magen Morris by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
234 ORDER granting plaintiff EEOC's 225 Motion to file exhibits under seal by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
235 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Inadequately Identified Exhibits by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/21/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
236 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 235 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Inadequately Identified Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
237 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to Mr. Les Schwab's Book "Pride in Performance Keep it Going!" by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 27 of 45

08/06/2009
08/06/2009
08/06/2009
08/06/2009
08/07/2009 08/13/2009 08/13/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009

Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/21/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
238 DECLARATION of Chelsea D. Petersen filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 237 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to Mr. Les Schwab's Book "Pride in Performance Keep it Going!" (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
239 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to the Superseded Version of "Policy 34" by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/21/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
240 DECLARATION of Kenneth J. Diamond filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 239 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to the Superseded Version of "Policy 34" (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
241 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Witnesses Not Identified Pursuant to Parties' Stipulated Agreement by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/21/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
242 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney James Walter Beck on behalf of Plaintiffs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Beck, James) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
243 MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
244 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 243 MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
245 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 241 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Witnesses Not Identified Pursuant to Parties' Stipulated Agreement. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
246 DECLARATION of Damien Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 241 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Witnesses Not Identified Pursuant to Parties' Stipulated Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
247 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 235 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Inadequately Identified Exhibits. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 28 of 45

08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009

248 DECLARATION of Damien A Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 235 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Inadequately Identified Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
249 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 235 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Inadequately Identified Exhibits. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
250 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 241 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Witnesses Not Identified Pursuant to Parties' Stipulated Agreement. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
251 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 237 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to Mr. Les Schwab's Book "Pride in Performance Keep it Going!". (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
252 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 237 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to Mr. Les Schwab's Book "Pride in Performance Keep it Going!" (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
253 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 239 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to the Superseded Version of "Policy 34". (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
254 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 239 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to the Superseded Version of "Policy 34" (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
255 DECLARATION of Magen Morris filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 239 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to the Superseded Version of "Policy 34" (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
256 DECLARATION of Jennifer Strange filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 239 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to the Superseded Version of "Policy 34" (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
257 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 239 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to the Superseded Version of "Policy 34". (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
258 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 237 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to Mr. Les Schwab's Book "Pride in Performance Keep it Going!". (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
259 DECLARATION of Damien A Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 237 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to Mr. Les Schwab's Book "Pride in Performance Keep it Going!" (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
260 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Admit Certain Evidence At Trial by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
261 DECLARATION of Damien A Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 260 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Admit Certain Evidence At Trial (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
262 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Certain Evidence At Trial by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 29 of 45

08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009
08/17/2009

263 MOTIONS IN LIMINE Omnibus Motion in Limine by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
264 DECLARATION of Chelsea D. Petersen filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 263 MOTIONS IN LIMINE Omnibus Motion in Limine (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (pp 4−35), # 2 Exhibit B (pp 36−51))(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
265 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Evidence Re 2007 Ethics Point Complaint by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
266 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 265 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Evidence Re 2007 Ethics Point Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (pp 4−9), # 2 Exhibit B (pp 10−19))(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
267 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' Data Summaries and "Comparator" Evidence Compilations by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
268 DECLARATION of Charles N. Eberhardt filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 267 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' Data Summaries and "Comparator" Evidence Compilations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (p 8), # 2 Exhibit B (pp 9−10), # 3 Exhibit C (p 11), # 4 Exhibit D (pp112−15), # 5 Exhibit E (pp 16−21), # 6 Exhibit F (pp 22−28), # 7 Exhibit G (pp 29−45), # 8 Exhibit H (pp 46−47), # 9 Exhibit I (pp 48−49), # 10 Exhibit J (pp 50−55))(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
269 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' "Anecdotal" Hiring Claim Witnesses by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 30 of 45

08/17/2009
08/17/2009
08/18/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009
08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009

270 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Rebuttal and Revised Expert Reports and Declarations by EEOC Expert Janice Madden, PH.D. by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
271 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 270 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Rebuttal and Revised Expert Reports and Declarations by EEOC Expert Janice Madden, PH.D. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
272 PRAECIPE re 260 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Admit Certain Evidence At Trial by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Motion, # 2 Proposed Order)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
273 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, TO RESPONSE to 239 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to the Superseded Version of "Policy 34" (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
274 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford re 273 Reply to Response to Motion, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
275 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 235 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Inadequately Identified Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
276 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford re 275 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
277 NOTICE of Filing Exhibit C to the Declaration of William B. Stafford In Support of Reply Brief on Motion to Exclude Inadequately Identified Trial Exhibits in Paper or Physical Form with the Clerk's Office by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
278 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 237 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude References to Mr. Les Schwab's Book "Pride in Performance Keep it Going!" (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 31 of 45

08/21/2009
08/21/2009
08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009
08/24/2009

279 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 241 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Witnesses Not Identified Pursuant to Parties' Stipulated Agreement (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
280 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth re 279 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
281 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 265 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Evidence Re 2007 Ethics Point Complaint. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
282 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 265 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Evidence Re 2007 Ethics Point Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − C)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
283 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 269 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' "Anecdotal" Hiring Claim Witnesses. (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
284 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 263 MOTIONS IN LIMINE Omnibus Motion in Limine. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
285 DECLARATION of James W. Beck filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 263 MOTIONS IN LIMINE Omnibus Motion in Limine (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − B)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
286 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 269 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' "Anecdotal" Hiring Claim Witnesses (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
287 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 270 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Rebuttal and Revised Expert Reports and Declarations by EEOC Expert Janice Madden, PH.D.. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
288 DECLARATION of Damien A Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 270 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Rebuttal and Revised Expert Reports and Declarations by EEOC Expert Janice Madden, PH.D. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
289 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 267 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' Data Summaries and "Comparator" Evidence Compilations. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
290 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 243 MOTIONS IN LIMINE. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
291 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 263 MOTIONS IN LIMINE Omnibus Motion in Limine. (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 08/24/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 32 of 45

08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009
08/24/2009
08/24/2009 08/25/2009
08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009

292 DECLARATION of Damien A. Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 263 MOTIONS IN LIMINE Omnibus Motion in Limine (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Healy, Teri) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
293 DECLARATION of Jeffrey Bannon filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 267 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' Data Summaries and "Comparator" Evidence Compilations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
294 DECLARATION of Damien A Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 267 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' Data Summaries and "Comparator" Evidence Compilations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
295 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 262 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Certain Evidence At Trial. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
296 DECLARATION of Chelsea Petersen filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 262 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Certain Evidence At Trial (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
297 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 265 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Evidence Re 2007 Ethics Point Complaint. (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
298 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 260 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Admit Certain Evidence At Trial. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
299 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, TO RESPONSE to 243 MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
300 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 243 MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
301 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, TO RESPONSE to 262 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Certain Evidence At Trial (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
302 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 262 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Exclude Certain Evidence At Trial (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
303 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 270 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Rebuttal and Revised Expert Reports and Declarations by EEOC Expert Janice Madden, PH.D. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/28/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 33 of 45

08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 09/03/2009

304 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford re 303 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
305 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 265 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Evidence Re 2007 Ethics Point Complaint (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
306 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 269 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' "Anecdotal" Hiring Claim Witnesses (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
307 DECLARATION of Jeffrey Hollingsworth re 306 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
308 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 267 MOTIONS IN LIMINE To Exclude Plaintiffs' Data Summaries and "Comparator" Evidence Compilations (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
309 DECLARATION of Charles N. Eberhardt re 308 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
310 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, TO RESPONSE to 260 MOTIONS IN LIMINE to Admit Certain Evidence At Trial (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
311 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO RESPONSE to 263 MOTIONS IN LIMINE Omnibus Motion in Limine (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
312 ORDER granting 139 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Promotion Claim and dismissing the claim by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(MKB) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 34 of 45

09/03/2009 09/03/2009
09/08/2009 09/08/2009 09/08/2009 09/09/2009
09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009
09/18/2009 09/22/2009

Attorney William R. Tamayo for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission added per 310 Reply. (KN) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
313 ORDER ON MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIALS granting dfts' 204 Motion for separate trials. The two individual pltfs Jennifer Strange and Magan Morris shall proceed to trial on their claims on 9/14/09, pretrial order due 9/8/09, pretrial conf in chambers set for 9/9/09 at 2pm, proposed jy instr, voir dire, trial briefs/exhibits due on 9/9/09 as currently set. Trial on EEOC's hiring claim continued to 11/2/09; pretrial order due 10/23/09, proposed jy inst, voir dire, trial briefs and exhibits due 10/27/09; pretrial conf set at a later date by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
314 ORDER by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. The Court DENIES Defendant's two motions for summary judgment, docket nos: 160 and 163 . (CL) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
PRETRIAL ORDER, SCHEDULING ORDER: Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 9/10/2009, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (LS) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
315 Proposed Pretrial Order by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
316 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S Martinez− Dep Clerk: Laurie Cuaresma; Pla Counsel: Warren Martin,James Beck; Def Counsel: Ken Diamond, Jeff Hollingsworth, Chelsea Petersen; Time of Hearing: 2:00 PM; In Chambers;Pretrial Conference held on 9/9/2009. Jury Trial re plaintiffs Strange and Morris is continued to 9/28/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S Martinez. Length of trial: 5 days. Court reviews general trial practices. Revised pretrial order, trial briefs, proposed voir dire and jury instructions due 9/18/09. Court makes preliminary rulings on motions in limine.(LC) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
317 ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE denying 237 Motion in Limine; denying 239 Motion in Limine; denying 243 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 263 Motion in Limine; granting 265 Motion in Limine by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
318 ORDER ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY 143 by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
319 Supplemental BRIEF re 317 Order on Motion in Limine,,,, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Beck, James) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
320 DECLARATION of James W. Beck re 317 Order on Motion in Limine,,,, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Beck, James) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
321 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S Martinez− Dep Clerk: Laurie Cuaresma; Pla Counsel: Warren Martin,James Beck; Def Counsel: Ken Diamond, Jeff Hollingsworth, Chelsea Petersen; Time of Hearing: 3:30 PM; Telephone Conference held on 9/15/2009. Counsel advise Court of issues regarding damages discovery; Court gives direction re document production. Trial date in this matter will be continued to 11/2/09, or a mutually agreed upon date thereafter −− the parties are directed to confer and advise the Clerk no later than 9/18/09. (LC) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
322 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) Agreed Order Setting Trial and PreTrial Dates. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
323 **REVISED**ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. Length of Trial: *5−7*. Jury Trial is set for 3/1/2010 at 09:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S Martinez. Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 10/2/2009, Discovery completed by 11/2/2009, 39.1 mediation to be completed by 1/15/2010, Motions in Limine due by 2/1/2010, Pretrial Order due by 2/17/2010, Trial briefs to be submitted by 2/24/2010, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 2/24/2010. (LC) (Entered: 09/22/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 35 of 45

09/22/2009 09/22/2009 09/22/2009 09/22/2009 09/22/2009
09/23/2009 09/24/2009
10/05/2009 10/07/2009 10/20/2009 10/22/2009 10/22/2009 10/26/2009
10/27/2009 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 10/28/2009 10/28/2009

REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER entered on 9/22/09 sets the trial schedule for the EEOC v. Les Schwab trial in this matter; this schedule does not refer to the case with the individual plaintiffs.(LC) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
324 Supplemental BRIEF re 317 Order on Motion in Limine,,,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
325 DECLARATION of Kenneth J. Diamond re 324 Brief by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
326 DECLARATION of Jodie Hueske re 324 Brief by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
327 AGREED ORDER SETTING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL DATES damages experts and reports disclosed by 10/6/09, any rebuttal experts and reports disclosed by 10/15/09, Pretrial Order due by 10/23/2009, Voir dire/jury instructions/trial briefs due by 10/28/2009, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
328 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE SURREPLY ; filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
329 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Supplemental Brief on Defendants' Transfer Offers to Strange and Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
330 STIPULATION to Extend Disclosure of Damages Experts and Reports by parties. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
331 STIPULATION to Extend Disclosure of Damages Experts and Reports by parties. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
332 STIPULATION by parties. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
333 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE granting in part and denying in part pltfs' motion in limine re post−charge job offers by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
334 STIPULATION AND ORDER to extend time to 11/20/09 for parties to complete expert discovery by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
335 Proposed Pretrial Order by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
336 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
337 Proposed Voir Dire by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
338 Proposed Voir Dire by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
339 Proposed Jury Instructions by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris JOINT INSTRUCTIONS (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
340 TRIAL BRIEF by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
341 Proposed Jury Instructions by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris JOINT STATEMENT OF DISPUTED INSTRUCTIONS (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 10/28/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 36 of 45

10/28/2009 11/02/2009
11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11/03/2009
11/04/2009
11/05/2009 11/05/2009
11/06/2009
11/06/2009 11/09/2009

342 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
343 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S Martinez− Dep Clerk: Laurie Cuaresma; Pla Counsel: Warren Martin, James Beck; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Chelsea Petersen, Ken Diamond; CR: Nancy Bauer; Time of Hearing: 9:00 AM; Courtroom: 13206;Voir Dire held on 11/2/2009; jury empanelled, sworn and given preliminary instructions. Jury Trial − DAY 1 begun on 11/2/2009. Counsel present opening statements. Pla witnesses called: MARK WITHAM. Exhibits admitted. Jury Trial will resume on 11/3/2009 at 09:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (LC) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
344 ORDER granting 178 Motion for Attorney Fees by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. The Court awards defendant the sum of $5376.00 as reasonable attorney's fees for the costs of bringing the motion to compel. Plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's reply memorandum (Dkt. # 223 ) is GRANTED. The Court has not considered the reply memorandum, nor awarded fees for the preparation of the reply. (KL) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
345 Jury Peremptory Challenges (KL) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
346 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S Martinez− Dep Clerk: Laurie Cuaresma; Pla Counsel: Warren Martin, James Beck; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Chelsea Petersen, Ken Diamond; CR: Nancy Bauer; Time of Hearing: 9:00 AM; Jury Trial − DAY 2 held on 11/3/2009. Pla witnesses called: MARK WITHAM resumes stand on direct (no cross at this time), JENNIFER STRANGE. Exhibits admitted. Jury trial will resume on 11/4/09 @ 9:30 AM. (LC) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
347 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S Martinez− Dep Clerk: Laurie Cuaresma; Pla Counsel: Warren Martin, James Beck; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Chelsea Petersen, Ken Diamond; CR: Nancy Bauer; Time of Hearing: 9:30 AM; Jury Trial held on 11/4/2009. Plaintiff calls: JEFFREY BEBA, JAMES DOUGLAS MOWBRAY, MAGEN MORRIS, ROBERT MOSS (via video dep). Exhibits entered. Jury trial will resume on 11/5/09 @ 9:00 AM. (LC) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
348 CORRECTED AGREED PRETRIAL ORDER by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (KL) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
349 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez− Dep Clerk: Lowell Williams; Pla Counsel: Warren Martin, James Beck; Def Counsel: Kenneth Diamond, Jeffrey Hollingsworth, Chelsea Petersen; CR: Nancy Bauer; Time of Hearing: 9:00 AM; Courtroom: 13206;Jury Trial − Day 4 held on 11/5/2009. ROBERT MOSS resumes stand on cross (by video deposition). Plaintiffs rest. Dfts move for directed verdict on promotion claim only. Counsel argue. Court denies motion as to both plaintiffs. Dfts call MARK WITHAM, DOUG MOWBRAY, DANIEL CURTIS, SPENCER ENQUIST and JODIE HUESKE. Exhibits admitted. Jury trial will resume 11/6/2009 at 9:00 AM. (LW) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
350 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez− Dep Clerk: Lowell Williams; Pla Counsel: Warren Martin, James Beck; Def Counsel: Kenneth Diamond, Jeffrey Hollingsworth, Chelsea Peterson; CR: Nancy Bauer; Time of Hearing: 9:00 AM; Courtroom: 13206;Jury Trial held on 11/6/2009. Dfts call PETER NICKERSON and RENEE SMILEY (by video deposition). Exhibits admitted. Dfts rest. Counsel make formal objections to jury instructions. Court instructs jury. Counsel make closing arguments. Jury retires to deliberate. Jury deliberation to resume 11/9/2009 at 9:00 AM. (LW) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
352 COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY (RS) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
351 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S Martinez− Dep Clerk: Laurie Cuaresma; Pla Counsel: Warren Martin, James Beck; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Chelsea Petersen, Ken Diamond; CR: Nancy Bauer; Time of Hearing: 3:45 PM; Jury Trial completed; jury verdict returned on 11/9/2009 (see verdict form). Court thanks jurors for their service; jurors excused. Plaintiffs' counsel requests additional 30 days to submit request for attorney fees:

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 37 of 45

11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/13/2009 11/13/2009 11/16/2009 11/17/2009 11/18/2009
11/30/2009 11/30/2009
11/30/2009 12/03/2009 12/03/2009 12/03/2009 12/03/2009 12/03/2009
12/03/2009 12/07/2009 12/11/2009

GRANTED. Court is in recess. (LC) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
353 ORDER directing clerk to pay for lunch for jurors by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
354 SPECIAL JURY VERDICT (RS) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
356 JUDGMENT BY JURY VERDICT in favor of plaintiffs in the amt of $285,200.00 (RS) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
357 SEALED COURT'S EXHIBIT LIST (RS) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
355 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER by parties re 334 Stipulation and Order, Set Deadlines. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
Clerk reopened this case as it was mistakenly terminated on the judgment. (RS) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
358 ORDER GRANTING SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR EXPERT DISCOVERY by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the parties' Second Stipulation to Extend Time for Expert Discovery is GRANTED. The parties will complete expert discovery by December 11, 2009. (KL) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
359 MOTION for New Trial by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. Noting Date 12/18/2009, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
360 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc re 359 MOTION for New Trial (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A Part 2, # 3 Exhibit B−C)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
361 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 359 MOTION for New Trial (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
362 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service) Noting Date 12/18/2009, (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
363 DECLARATION of Judith A. Lonnquist filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 362 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
364 DECLARATION of Jesse Wing filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 362 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
365 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 362 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D and E to Martin Dec)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
366 MOTION for Disclosure of Defendants' Attorney Fees/Expenses (Conditional) by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service) Noting Date 12/18/2009, (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
367 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 366 MOTION for Disclosure of Defendants' Attorney Fees/Expenses (Conditional) (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
368 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER by parties. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting 3rd Stipulation to Extend Time for Expert Discovery)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
369 ORDER granting third stipulation to extend time for expert discovery by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) (Entered: 12/11/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 38 of 45

12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009
12/14/2009
12/15/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/30/2009 01/06/2010 01/08/2010 01/11/2010

370 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, to 359 MOTION for New Trial. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
371 E−FILING ERROR, counsel refiled as 372 DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 359 MOTION for New Trial (Martin, Warren) Modified on 12/15/2009 (KN). (Entered: 12/14/2009)
372 Amended DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 359 MOTION for New Trial (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
373 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, to 362 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
374 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford re 373 Response to Motion by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D, # 2 Exhibit E−O, # 3 Exhibit P−Q)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
375 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, to 366 MOTION for Disclosure of Defendants' Attorney Fees/Expenses (Conditional). (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 371 Declaration : E−filing error, counsel refiled as 372 Amended Declaration (KN) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
376 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, TO RESPONSE to 362 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
377 Supplemental DECLARATION of Warren Martin (Supplemental) filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 362 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
378 Supplemental DECLARATION of Warren E. Martin (Post−Judgment Fees) filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris re 362 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses (Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
379 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris, TO RESPONSE to 366 MOTION for Disclosure of Defendants' Attorney Fees/Expenses (Conditional) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
380 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, TO RESPONSE to 359 MOTION for New Trial (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
381 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford re 380 Reply to Response to Motion by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
***Motion terminated: 366 MOTION for Disclosure of Defendants' Attorney Fees/Expenses (Conditional) filed by Magen Morris, Jennifer Strange. Motion withdrawn by plaintiffs in Reply, Dkt. # 379. (LS) (Entered: 12/30/2009)
382 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney May R Che on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Che, May) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
383 ORDER denying dfts' 359 Motion for New Trial by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
384 ORDER on dfts' 154 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff EEOC's Punitive Damages Claim filed by Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 39 of 45

01/12/2010 01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/22/2010 01/25/2010
01/25/2010
01/28/2010 01/28/2010
01/28/2010 01/28/2010 01/28/2010 01/29/2010 02/01/2010

385 ORDER Denying Dft's Motion for partial summary judgment by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (KL) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
386 Joint MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. Noting Date 1/19/2010, (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
387 DECLARATION of Chelsea D. Petersen in Support of Joint Motion for Clarification filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 386 Joint MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
388 DECLARATION of Damien A. Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 386 Joint MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
389 MINUTE ORDER granting 386 Joint Motion for clarification; case remains bifurcated for trial by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
390 MOTION for Reconsideration re 385 Order, 384 Order, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. Noting Date 1/25/2010, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
391 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 390 MOTION for Reconsideration re 385 Order, 384 Order, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
392 MOTION to Exclude TESTIMONY OF MARY DUNN BAKER by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 2/12/2010, (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
393 DECLARATION of DAMIEN A. LEE filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 392 MOTION to Exclude TESTIMONY OF MARY DUNN BAKER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
394 MOTIONS IN LIMINE "OMNIBUS" TO ADMIT CERTAIN EVIDENCE AND TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Noting Date 2/1/2010, (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
395 DECLARATION of Damien A. Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 394 MOTIONS IN LIMINE "OMNIBUS" TO ADMIT CERTAIN EVIDENCE AND TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
396 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 394 MOTIONS IN LIMINE "OMNIBUS" TO ADMIT CERTAIN EVIDENCE AND TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
Set Hearings: By agreement of counsel, Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/10/2010 at 10:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (LW) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
397 ORDER denying dfts' 390 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) (Entered: 02/01/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 40 of 45

02/01/2010 02/01/2010 02/01/2010 02/01/2010 02/08/2010 02/08/2010 02/08/2010 02/08/2010 02/08/2010

398 MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 2/19/2010, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
399 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 398 MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
400 DECLARATION of Peter Nickerson, Ph.D. filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 398 MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
401 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA upon Jodi Hueski HR/Legal Dept c/o Perkins Coie served on 1/28/10. (RS) Text Modified on 2/2/2010 (RS). (Entered: 02/02/2010)
402 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 394 MOTIONS IN LIMINE "OMNIBUS" TO ADMIT CERTAIN EVIDENCE AND TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
403 DECLARATION of Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth re 402 Response to Motion,, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
404 RESPONSE, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, to 392 MOTION to Exclude TESTIMONY OF MARY DUNN BAKER. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
405 DECLARATION of Charles N. Eberhardt re 404 Response to Motion, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B, # 2 Exhibit C−F)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
406 DECLARATION of Mary D. Baker re 404 Response to Motion, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Hollingsworth,

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 41 of 45

02/08/2010
02/10/2010
02/10/2010
02/11/2010 02/11/2010 02/11/2010 02/11/2010 02/12/2010 02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/16/2010

Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
407 DECLARATION of Peter H. Nickerson re 404 Response to Motion, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
408 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S Martinez− Dep Clerk: Laurie Cuaresma; Pla Counsel: Damien Lee, John Stanley, May Che, Teri Healy; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Charles Eberhardt, Ken Diamond, Chelsea Petersen; Time of Hearing: 10:00 AM; Pretrial Conference held on 2/10/2010. Court discusses logistics of trial and procedural practices (i.e. trial days/times, number of jurors to be selected, etc.). Liability phase of trial to proceed on 3/1/10 @ 9:00 a.m.; damages phase, if necessary, to be scheduled at a later date. Parties advise Court re potential witnesses; Court briefly discusses pending motions in limine, order to be issued as soon as possible. Additional pretrial conference may be set prior to jury selection; Court instructs parties to advise as soon as possible if settlement judge would be beneficial. (LC) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
409 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Motions to Strike by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 EEOC's Response to Defendants' Motions to Strike, # 3 Declaration of D Lee in Support of EEOC's Response to Defendants' Motions to Strike, # 4 Exhibit A to Lee Decl in Support of EEOC Response to Defs' Motions to Strike) Noting Date 2/26/2010, (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
410 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Lisa Ann Cox for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
411 MOTION to Amend 37 Answer to Amended Complaint,,by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Regarding Defendants' Motion to Amend Answer) Noting Date 2/26/2010, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
412 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc re 411 MOTION to Amend 37 Answer to Amended Complaint,, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
413 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA upon Greg L'Hommedieu served on 2/5/10. (KL) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
414 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA upon Jeffrey Beba served on 2/5/10. (RS) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
415 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 398 MOTIONS IN LIMINE. (Che, May) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
416 DECLARATION of DAMIEN A. LEE filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 398 MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Che, May) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
417 DECLARATION of Janice Madden in Support of EEOC Response to Defs' Motion in Limine filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 398 MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1 Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A1 Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A1 Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A1 Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A1 Part 5, # 6 Exhibit A1 Part 6, # 7 Exhibit A1 Part 7)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
418 DECLARATION of Janice Madden in Support of EEOC Response to Defs' Motion in Limine (Ex. A2, Pts. 1−5 &Index for Ex. 82) filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 398 MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 42 of 45

02/17/2010 02/17/2010 02/17/2010 02/18/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010
02/22/2010 02/22/2010
02/22/2010
02/22/2010

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A2 Part 2 (to Madden Decl. in Support of EEOC Response to Defs' Motion in Limine), # 2 Exhibit A2 Part 3 (Madden Decl.), # 3 Exhibit A2 Part 4 (Madden Decl.), # 4 Exhibit A2 Part 5 (Madden Decl.), # 5 Exhibit Index to EEOC Ex. 82 (Madden Decl.))(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
419 MINUTE ORDER referring matter to Judge Thomas S. Zilly for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference, at the direction of Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (LW) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
420 Stipulated MOTION to extend deposition designation deadline by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Healy, Teri) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
421 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Healy, Teri) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
422 PRAECIPE re 421 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Healy, Teri) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
423 ORDER granting 420 Stipulated Motion. By direction of Judge Ricardo S Martinez. The Court adopts the parties' stipulation. The parties shall have until February 22, 2010 to submit designated deposition transcripts.(LS) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
Reset Deadlines: Trial Exhibit deadline extended to 2/24/2010, at the direction of Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.(LW) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
424 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 411 MOTION to Amend 37 Answer to Amended Complaint,,. (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
425 PRAECIPE to attach document Five Infinium Extracts re 418 Declaration,, 417 Declaration, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Additional Five Infinium Extracts)(Che, May) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
426 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 398 MOTIONS IN LIMINE. (Attachments: # 1 Decl. of D Lee in Support of EEOC's Opposition, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Attach B to Lee Decl, # 4 Exhibit Attach C to Lee Decl., # 5 Exhibit Attach D to Lee Decl., # 6 Exhibit Attach E to Lee Decl., # 7 Exhibit Attach F to Lee Decl., # 8 Exhibit Attach G to Lee Decl, # 9 Exhibit Attach H to Lee Decl, # 10 Exhibit Attach I to Lee Decl, # 11 Exhibit Attach J to Lee Decl)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
427 DECLARATION of Janice Madden filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 398 MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Lee, Damien) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
428 MOTION for Sanctions by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/12/2010, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
429 DECLARATION of Peter Nickerson filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 428 MOTION for Sanctions (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
430 DECLARATION of Charles N. Eberhardt filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 43 of 45

02/22/2010 02/22/2010 02/24/2010 02/24/2010 02/24/2010 02/24/2010 02/24/2010 02/24/2010 02/24/2010 02/24/2010 02/25/2010 02/25/2010
02/25/2010 02/26/2010

Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc re 428 MOTION for Sanctions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Exhibit F−K)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
431 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA upon Lester Mather served on 2/4/10. (RS) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
442 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Thomas S. Zilly− Dep Clerk: Gail Glass; Pla Counsel: Damien Lee; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth; CR: NONE; Settlement Conference held on 2/22/2010 by the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly. (GG) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
432 MOTION for Hearing Offer of Proof re: Exhibit 82 by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/12/2010, (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
433 DECLARATION of Damien A. Lee filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 432 MOTION for Hearing Offer of Proof re: Exhibit 82 (Attachments: # 1 Errata A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Healy, Teri) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
434 Proposed Voir Dire by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
435 Proposed Jury Instructions by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc JOINT INSTRUCTIONS (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
436 Proposed Voir Dire by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Che, May) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
437 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc. (Petersen, Chelsea) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
438 TRIAL BRIEF by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Stanley, John) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
439 Proposed Jury Instructions by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc (Joint Submission) (Che, May) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
Reset Trial Date and Related Deadlines: By agreement of the parties, Jury Trial is reset for 3/3/2010 at 9:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (LW) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
440 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez− Dep Clerk: Lowell Williams; Pla Counsel: John Stanley, Damien Lee, Teri Healy, May Che, Rita Byrnes Kittle, Jeffrey Bannon; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Ken Diamond, Charles Eberhardt, Chelsea Petersen; Time of Hearing: 11:00 AM; Final Pretrial Conference held on 2/25/2010. By agreement of the parties, trial date continued to 3/3/2010. (LW) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
441 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Raymond T Cheung on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cheung, Raymond) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
443 REPLY, filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc, TO

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 44 of 45

02/26/2010
02/26/2010 03/01/2010 03/02/2010
03/03/2010 03/09/2010 03/10/2010 03/12/2010 03/25/2010 04/23/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 07/22/2010

RESPONSE to 411 MOTION to Amend 37 Answer to Amended Complaint,, (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
444 DECLARATION of William B. Stafford re 443 Reply to Response to Motion, by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of California Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Nevada Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Utah Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Idaho Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Boise Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C, # 2 Exhibit D−G)(Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
445 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Thomas S. Zilly− Dep Clerk: N/A; Pla Counsel: Damien Lee; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth; CR: NONE; Settlement Conference held on 2/26/2010.By the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly. (GG) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
446 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Thomas S. Zilly− Dep Clerk: N/A; Pla Counsel: Teri Healy and Jeffrey Bannon; Def Counsel: Jeffrey Hollingsworth and Kenneth J. Diamond; CR: Deane Hovland; Settlement Conference held on 3/1/2010.by the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly (GG) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
447 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo S Martinez− Dep Clerk: Laurie Cuaresma; Pla Counsel: Jeffrey Bannon, Teri Healy, Rita Byrnes Kittle; Def Counsel: Jeff Hollingsworth, Charles Eberhardt, Ken Diamond, Chelsea Petersen; CR: Danae Hovland; Time of Hearing: 1:00 PM; In Court Hearing held on 3/2/2010. Court hears argument of counsel re remaining issues in dispute as to finalization of settlement. Parties will submit the latest draft of consent decree for Court's review; Court will make its decision/resolve issues in dispute as soon as possible. (LC) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
448 SEALED DOCUMENT NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Hearing held on 3/1/2010 before Judge Thomas S. Zilly.
Modified on 3/25/2010; TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN SEALED AS DIRECTED IN 452 MINUTE ORDER.(LMK). (Entered: 03/04/2010)
449 NOTICE of Settlement and Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Attach A to Consent Decree, # 2 Attach B to Consent Decree, # 3 Attach C to Consent Decree, # 4 Proposed Order)(Lee, Damien) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
450 ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
451 NOTICE of Intent to Request Redaction by Teri L Healy of 448 Electronic Transcript (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
452 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly re 448 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript; Having reviewed the EEOCs Notice of Intent to Request Redaction ofTranscript, docket no. 451, the Court ORDERS that the transcript of settlement proceedings,docket no. 448, not be made public.(LMK) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
453 STATEMENT of Additional Authority by Plaintiffs Jennifer Strange, Magen Morris. (Beck, James) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
454 ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. plaintiffs shall be awarded a total of $583,930 in attorneys' fees and $47,218.02 in expenses.(CL) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
455 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE. THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT; THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT plaintiffs shall be awarded a total of $583,930 in attorneys' feesand $47,218.02 in expenses. (CL) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
456 NOTICE of Satisfaction of Judgment for Jennifer Strange ; filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-00045-RSM As of: 01/14/2012 03:40 PM PST 45 of 45

07/22/2010 07/22/2010 07/22/2010 07/27/2010

457 NOTICE of Satisfaction of Judgment (M. Morris) ; filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
458 NOTICE of Satisfaction of Judgment (J. Strange) ; filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
459 NOTICE of Satisfaction of Judgment (M. Morris) ; filed by Defendants Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland Inc, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington Inc, Les Schwab Warehouse Centers Inc. (Hollingsworth, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
460 NOTICE OF SATISFACTION re 344 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, ; filed by Plaintiffs Magen Morris, Jennifer Strange. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Martin, Warren) (Entered: 07/27/2010)

 
 New EEOC Publication Addresses Reasonable Accommodation for Atto...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-31-06.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

May 31, 2006

CONTACT:

Joan Ehrlich, District Director William R. Tamayo, Regional Attorney Kathryn Olson, Supervisory Trial Attorney John F. Stanley, Senior Trial Attorney

(415) 625-5611 (415) 625-5645 (206) 220-6895 (206) 220-6896

cell (415) 238-0973 cell (415) 336-8805

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS EXCLUDE WOMEN FROM MANAGEMENT, EEOC CHARGES IN SEX SUIT

Federal Agency Says Company Denied Women Promotion Opportunities, Told Female Employee ‘Gals Should Work in Admin’
SEATTLE – Les Schwab Tire Centers, one of the largest tire and automotive businesses in the West, violated federal law by failing to hire, train, and promote women into management jobs because of their sex, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Charging Parties Megan Morris and Jennifer Strange worked in various Les Schwab stores in the Puget Sound area in Washington, including Tacoma, Bellevue, SeaTac, and Puyallup. Although they requested to work in the tire bays, they were repeatedly denied these jobs and the opportunity for promotion due to their gender, according to the EEOC. The women brought charges of discrimination to the EEOC that form the basis of today’s lawsuit.
The EEOC also alleges that Les Schwab failed to hire female applicants into sales and service department jobs. These positions -which involve mounting, dismounting, repairing and rotating tires -- are held mainly by males and are a prerequisite for entry into more lucrative management jobs. The agency found that Les Schwab excluded women from those roles for more than 50 years and only recently promoted one woman to the position of assistant manager.
“In 1996, I started at the bottom and worked up to sales and management for an independently owned Les Schwab Tire Center. But when Les Schwab corporate took over this store, they demoted me to bookkeeper,” said Strange. “When I asked about my prior position, I was told ‘No gal in the company would ever make that kind of money. Gals should work in admin.’ I stayed for almost two years trying to move back into sales and management, but the company refused to consider me for that kind of job.
EEOC San Francisco District Director Joan Ehrlich noted, “Company founder Les Schwab’s own published book exposes a corporate culture where men get the better jobs. Mr. Schwab’s book describes in great detail how men get ahead in the company, and it reinforces a decades-old idea that men do certain jobs and women do others. Mr. Schwab published the book some time ago, but a copy is still available for sale in every Les Schwab store. Our lawsuit should go a long way toward bringing women into a workplace that historically has shut them out.”
EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “It is shocking to see a sex-segregated work force where qualified and capable female applicants and employees who want to move up the ladder of success are held back due to their gender. Our suit seeks monetary relief for a potentially large class of women, and we are also seeking corrective measures to remove the barriers of discrimination.”
He noted that the EEOC filed this suit only after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation, and seeks monetary damages, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the work site and other injunctive relief.
According to the company’s website, www.lesschwab.com, there are over 400 Les Schwab Tire Centers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California, Utah and Nevada. The company is based in Prineville, Ore.
The EEOC enforces the nation's laws in the private and federal sectors prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age and disability. The Seattle Field Office’s jurisdiction includes Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

This page was last modified on June 02, 2006.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

6/12/2007 4:48 PM