Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC

Document 1-1

Filed 01/09/2007

Page 1 of 8

FILED

2007 Jan-12 PM 01:52 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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

LINDA JOHNSON, Plaintiff
v. STEELCASE, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff complains of defendant, stating as follows:

Introduction

1. This action is brought by plaintiff against defendant pursuant to Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil

Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and pursuant to Section 1981 of the Civil

Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended bythe Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

Jurisdiction

2. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1331

because it involves a federal question.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Linda Johnson is an individual residing in Madison County,

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 1-1 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 2 of 8
Alabama. 4. Defendant Steelcase, Inc. is the employer of plaintiff as that term is
contemplated by Title VII and operates a facility in Athens, Alabama
Facts 5. Plaintiff is a black or African American woman. 6. Plaintiff applied for and received a promotion to backup quality
specialist on 2nd/3rd shift. 7. She applied for the position in May 2005 and held the position until on
or about February 16, 2006, when she was demoted to a production technician position.
8. There was no legitimate basis for defendant's decision to demote plaintiff.
9. Defendant claims plaintiff voluntarily requested a transfer to 1 St shift and that her voluntary transfer caused her demotion from the backup quality specialist position.
10. This claim is false. 11. Plaintiff did not voluntarily transfer to 1St shift. 12. Defendant's misrepresentation regarding the transfer is a pretext for sex discrimination, race discrimination, or a combination of the two.
2

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 1-1 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 3 of 8
13. Plaintiff was initially replaced by a white male, who was sent from day shift to be the backup quality specialist on 2nd shift.
14. Later, plaintiff's position was given permanently to a white female.
Count I - Sex Discrimination
15. At all times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, defendant was plaintiff's employer within the meaning of Title VII.
16. Plaintiff has been subjected to sex discrimination by defendants in violation of Title VII.
17. On or about February 16, 2006, defendant demoted plaintiff from a
backup quality specialist position to a production technician position. 18. Defendant demoted plaintiff in whole or in part because of her gender,
which is female, or because she is a black or African American female. 19. Defendant acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to plaintiff's
federally-protected rights. 20. The conduct of defendant proximately caused injury and damage to
plaintiff, including the following: a. plaintiff was and will be caused to suffer severe emotional distress; b. plaintiff was and will be caused to lose wages and other benefits; c. plaintiff's reputation was damaged; and
3

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 1-1 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 4 of 8
d. plaintiff's employment record was tarnished.
Count II - Race Discrimination
21. At all times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, defendant was plaintiffs employer within the meaning of Title VII.
22. Plaintiff has been subjected to race discrimination by defendant in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
23. On or about February 16, 2006, defendant demoted plaintiff from a
backup quality specialist position to a production technician position. 24. Defendant demoted plaintiff in whole or in part because of her race,
which is black or African American, or because she is a black or African American female.
25. Defendant acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to plaintiffs federally-protected rights.
26. The conduct of defendant proximately caused injury and damage to plaintiff, including the following:
a. plaintiff was and will be caused to suffer severe emotional distress; b. plaintiff was and will be caused to lose wages and other benefits; c. plaintiffs reputation was damaged; and d. plaintiffs employment record was tarnished.
4

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 1-1 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 5 of 8
Other Matters 27. All conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have occurred.
28. Plaintiff filed her charge on or about August 7, 2006, less than 180 days after February 16,2006. Plaintiff's charge is attached as Exhibit 1 to this complaint.
29. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit within 90 days of October 25, 2006, the date the EEOC mailed her notice of right to sue. Plaintiff's notice of right to sue is attached as Exhibit 2 to this complaint.
Relief Sought 30. As relief, plaintiff seeks the following:
a. appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief, including
reinstatement (or front pay in lieu of reinstatement); b. back pay and benefits; C. compensatory damages; d. punitive damages under;
e. prejudgment and postjudgment interest at the highest rates
allowed by law;
f. costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney's fees;
g. an amount to compensate plaintiff for any adverse tax
consequences as a result of a favorable judgment; and
h. such other and further relief to which plaintiff is justly entitled. Dated: January 8, 2007.
5

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 1-1 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 6 of 8
Henry F. herrod III
Alabama Bar No. ASB-1200-D63H HENRY F. SHERROD III, P.C. 119 South Court Street P. 0. Box 606 Florence, Alabama 35631-0606 Phone: 256-764-4141 Fax: 877-684-0802
Email: hsherrodhiwaay.net Attorney for Plaintiff Jury Demand
Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.
Henry F. S errod III
6

 
 Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 1 of 22

FILED

2008 Feb-19 PM 01:51 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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

LINDA JOHNSON and the class she )

seeks to represent,

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

STEELCASE, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CASE NO. CV-07-C-0064-NE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action against Steelcase, Inc. to redress racial discrimination

in its selection system for promotions. Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of

a class of similarly-situated African-American employees, seeks a declaratory

judgment and equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief pursuant to the Civil Rights

Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981(A).

2. Plaintiff Linda Johnson brings this action on her own behalf and on

behalf of all African-American employees at Steelcase who sought promotions from

production technician positions to more-desirable and higher-paying positions,

including but not limited to supervisor, temporary supervisor, zone leader, job setter,

1

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 2 of 22
production specialist, and all other positions classified by defendant as “craft worker” positions on its EEO-1 forms; who may in the future seek such jobs; or who would in the past have sought such jobs in the absence of the discriminatory practices challenged in this case.
3. Class certification is sought on plaintiff’s pattern or practice claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for the equitable relief. For the punitive damages claim, plaintiff seeks class certification under either Rule 23(b)(2) as part of the relief available at Stage I of a bifurcated trial of their pattern or practice claim for injunctive relief or as a hybrid certification under both Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
4. Plaintiff also brings a claim on her own behalf only under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and which is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §1981a, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981(A), for her demotion from backup quality specialist to production technician, the claim in her original complaint. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3),1343(a)(4), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.
6. Plaintiff Linda Johnson is a resident of Madison County, Alabama.
2

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 3 of 22
Defendant Steelcase, Inc. does business throughout the United States, including its facilities located in Limestone County, Alabama. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. III. PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Linda Johnson is an African-American female citizen of the United States, over the age of nineteen, and a resident of the State of Alabama.
8. Defendant Steelcase, Inc. is a proper defendant pursuant to Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981(A), and an employer within the meaning of that term as used in Title VII. At all times pertinent to the matters alleged herein, defendant employed fifteen (15) or more employees. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs. 10. Defendant manufactures office furniture. 11. The assembly-line work of the manufacturing operation is performed by employees called “production technicians.” This is defendant’s entry-level position. The great majority of defendant’s employees are hired into this position. 12. Plaintiff was initially hired by defendant as a production technician at its Athens, Alabama facility. 13. At new employee training plaintiff and others received, defendant
3

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 4 of 22
emphasized that most of the jobs in the plant, like the production technician position itself, did not require any special certifications or education beyond a high school diploma. Plaintiff and others were told that most jobs in the plant required only onthe-job training after selection. Plaintiff and others were told they could go as high in the company as they wanted to go.
14. In reality, however, this is not how things work at Steelcase for AfricanAmerican employees.
15. On information and belief, according to data supplied by defendant to the EEOC for its Athens operation for 2007, though African-American employees are 53 percent (134/252 or 53.17%) of the production technician pool out of which higher-level positions are filled, they occupy a substantially smaller percentage of the more-desirable and higher-paying jobs into which they could have been promoted, constituting only 5.9% (1/17 = 5.88%) of the supervisors and occupy only 7.9% (10/127 = 7.87%) of the jobs referred to as “craft worker” jobs in defendant’s 2007 EEO-1, including but not limited to zone leader, temporary supervisor, job setter, and production specialist.
16. Effectively, defendant has segregated African-American employees in the least-desirable and lowest-paying jobs in the plant.
17. Defendant rarely posts jobs. Rather, the standard operating procedure
4

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 5 of 22
has been for individuals to be hand-picked for promotions, and the supervisors doing the picking, as noted above, are overwhelmingly white.
18. Plaintiff was a victim of this system. 19. In response to a posting, plaintiff applied for and received a promotion from production technician to a backup quality specialist position (a type of production specialist position) on 2nd/3rd shift. 20. The only reason the position was posted was because defendant’s efforts to fill the job by hand-picking a person failed. 21. The only reason plaintiff got the job was because no one else applied for it. 22. After plaintiff was awarded the position, she held the position until on or about February 16, 2006, when she was demoted back to a production technician position. 23. There was no legitimate basis for defendant’s decision to demote plaintiff. 24. Defendant claims plaintiff voluntarily requested a transfer to 1st shift and that her voluntary transfer caused her demotion from the backup quality specialist position. 25. This claim is false. Defendant’s own policy specifically says that official
5

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 6 of 22
backups like plaintiff are not part of the production technician classification and thus not part of the transfer system.
26. Defendant’s misrepresentation regarding the transfer was a pretext for race discrimination, sex discrimination, or a combination of the two.
27. Plaintiff was initially replaced by a white male, who was sent from day shift to be the backup quality specialist on 2nd shift.
28. Later, plaintiff’s position was given permanently to a white female. 29. Prior to plaintiff’s promotion, the quality department had been entirely white. 30. After plaintiff’s demotion, the quality department was again entirely white. 31. Plaintiff filed a charge concerning the demotion on or about August 7, 2006, less than 180 days after February 16, 2006. Plaintiff’s charge is attached as Exhibit 1 to her original complaint. 32. Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit asserting her demotion claim under Title VII and § 1981 in January 2007, which was within 90 days of October 25, 2006, the date the EEOC mailed her notice of right to sue. Plaintiff’s notice of right to sue is attached as Exhibit 2 to her original complaint. 33. During the pendency of this lawsuit, in August 2007, defendant, as part
6

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 7 of 22
of an alleged reorganization of its quality department, announced one or more open quality specialist positions.
34. Plaintiff applied for a quality specialist position. 35. Plaintiff was qualified for the job. 36. Plaintiff was interviewed for the position. 37. Defendant rejected plaintiff’s application. 38. After the alleged reorganization, the quality department remained allwhite. 39. Also, in approximately late September or early October 2007, defendant filled a zone leader position in the area in which plaintiff worked. 40. While a zone leader position is considered an hourly position, it is a promotion from a production technician position, functions as an assistant supervisor in an area, and supervisors are commonly selected from the pool of zone leaders. 41. Defendant filled this position without posting it. 42. Defendant filled this position without interviewing plaintiff for the position. 43. Plaintiff was qualified for the position. 44. Plaintiff had expressed interest in the position. When a white female was temporarily placed in the zone leader position, plaintiff questioned her supervisor
7

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 8 of 22
regarding why she or someone else who was working in the area had not been asked to temporarily fill the slot. The supervisor had no explanation but told plaintiff when the job was posted her chances of getting the position were good because of her knowledge of and experience in the area.
45. Nevertheless, defendant did not post the job, and a white male was given the job.
46. Upon information and belief, defendant has a promotion system that is intended to prevent African-Americans from advancing out of the production technician position into more-desirable and higher-paying jobs and that has the effect of segregating African-Americans in the less-desirable and lower-paying production technician jobs.
47. Upon information and belief, as described above, African-Americans are significantly underrepresented in positions above production technician.
48. Upon information and belief, one or more areas or departments are allwhite.
49. Individual supervisory personnel of defendant are permitted to identify individuals to be promoted “temporarily” into positions. This practice allows the person selected to gain experience that makes them better qualified for future advancement. White supervisory personnel repeatedly select white employees for
8

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 9 of 22
“temporary” zone leader and other positions and largely exclude African-Americans from these positions.
50. Zone leaders fill in temporarily for supervisors, thus gaining supervisory experience and having an advantage in applying for supervisor and other positions that come open.
51. Upon information and belief, defendant regularly hand-picks and places persons in positions temporarily, saying that the position is not being posted because it is just temporary, only to have the position end up being a permanent one that is given to the hand-picked person who was “temporarily” placed in the position.
52. Upon information and belief, usually the position is not posted when it is made permanent and given to a hand-picked person.
53. Upon information and belief, even if a position is posted when it is made permanent, it is usually given to the hand-picked person who was in the position temporarily.
54. Upon information and belief, defendant maintains the above-described promotion policies and practices knowing and intending that they limit the advancement opportunities of African-American employees and that they cause African-Americans to be significantly underrepresented in job classifications above production technician.
9

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 10 of 22
55. Upon information and belief, the above-described promotion policies and practices disparately impact African-American employees, including the named plaintiff. Such policies and practices also discourage African-American applicants from applying for promotions that even do get posted.
56. Defendant discriminates on the basis of race at each such stage of the selection process for promotions as well as throughout the promotion process as a whole. Such discrimination is accomplished through: (a) disparate impact; (b) disparate treatment; and (c) a pattern or practice of race discrimination.
57. On January 14, 2008, plaintiff filed an EEOC charge against defendant on her own behalf and on behalf of all African-Americans who have sought promotions from the production technician position to more-desirable and higherpaying jobs as described in paragraph 2 above, who may in the future seek such jobs, or who in the past would have sought such jobs in the absence of the discriminatory practices challenged in this case.
58. Upon receipt of a notice of right to sue, plaintiff will seek to amend her complaint to add her Title VII promotion claims, including both disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. Plaintiff currently alleges her disparate treatment promotion claims under § 1981.
59. In addition to having a disparate impact on African-American
10

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 11 of 22
employees, defendant’s promotion policies and practices are part of a pattern or practice of discouraging and/or preventing African-Americans from applying for or being considered for promotions out of the production technician position and rejecting them when they express interest in or apply for such jobs. V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — DISPARATE TREATMENT —
INDIVIDUAL DEMOTION CLAIM 60. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the paragraphs above. 61. Plaintiff has been subjected to race and/or sex discrimination by defendant in violation of Title VII and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 62. On or about February 16, 2006, defendant demoted plaintiff from a backup quality specialist position to a production technician position. 63. Defendant demoted plaintiff in whole or in part because of her race, which is African-American, because she is a woman, and/or because she is an African-American female. 64. Defendant acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. 65. The conduct of defendant proximately caused injury and damage to plaintiff. VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — DISPARATE TREATMENT IN PROMOTIONS (CLASS)
11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 12 of 22
66. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the paragraphs above. 67. Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against African-Americans on the basis of their race with respect to promotions from the production technician position to more-desirable and higher-paying jobs as described in paragraph 2 above. 68. Defendant’s selection procedures are intended to have a disparate impact on plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent. Such practices form a part of defendant’s overall pattern and practice of keeping African-Americans segregated in the less-desirable and lower-paying production technician classification. Defendant’s selection system perpetuates defendant’s decades-old policy and practice of keeping African-Americans out of the more-desirable and higher-paying jobs and perpetuates prior racial discrimination and a segregated workforce. 69. Plaintiff seeks only equitable relief in this count of the Complaint, including backpay, instatement, retroactive seniority and status, and other declaratory and injunctive relief for such unlawful disparate treatment, making class certification appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). 70. Defendant’s selection procedures have adversely affected the named plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent by, among other things, failing to select African-Americans for the job positions described in paragraph 2 above. Because of
12

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 13 of 22
defendant’s discriminatory employment practices, plaintiff and the class have experienced harm, including a past and future loss of wages and benefits.
71. The named plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent seek to redress the wrongs alleged herein. This suit for back pay (plus interest), instatement, retroactive seniority and status, and other declaratory and injunctive relief is their only means of securing adequate relief. Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and expenses. VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — PUNITIVE DAMAGES
72. Plaintiff restates and incorporates the paragraphs above. 73. Because the above-described promotion policies and practices are such an obvious barrier to African-Americans being selected for promotions, because defendant’s actions are so inconsistent with ordinary business practices, and because the resultant segregation of African-American employees in the production technician classification is so easily observed by any person working for defendant, the defendant must have acted maliciously, willfully, and with reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent, making punitive damages an appropriate remedy. 74. Such punitive damages are sought for defendant’s conduct towards African-American employees, not for any individualized injury or harm. As such, the
13

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 14 of 22
entitlement to such damages are properly part of the same proof at Stage I of a bifurcated trial for classwide injunctive relief sought as part of the Second Cause of Action and do not require individualized proof from each member of the class towards whom such discrimination was directed. VIII. CLASS CERTIFICATION ALLEGATIONS
75. Class certification is sought separately for each of the two class causes of action set forth above. Class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) for the equitable relief sought on the disparate treatment pattern or practice claim. For the punitive damages claim, plaintiff seeks class certification under either Rule 23(b)(2) as part of the relief available at Stage I of a bifurcated trial of their pattern or practice claim for injunctive relief or as a hybrid certification under both Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
76. The named plaintiff is a member of the class she seeks to represent for each of the class causes of action. The prosecution of the claims of the named individual plaintiff requires adjudication of the question common to the putative class: is defendant’s selection process for promotions part of a pattern or practice of segregating African-American employees in the production technician position and preventing them from advancing into more-desirable and higher-paying jobs as described in paragraph 2 above? The claims of the named plaintiff and the class have
14

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 15 of 22
common questions of law and fact because defendant has discouraged and prevented African-Americans from applying for or being considered for promotions to such jobs and rejected them when they have expressed an interest in or applied for such jobs.
77. The relief necessary to remedy the claims of the named plaintiff is the same relief that is necessary for the class and therefore satisfies the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). The named plaintiff seeks the following relief for her individual promotion claims and those of the class: a declaratory judgment that defendant has engaged in systemic race discrimination by limiting the advancement opportunities of African-Americans; a permanent injunction against such continuing discrimination; a restructuring of defendant’s promotion selection procedures so that African-Americans are able to learn about and fairly compete in the future for jobs; a restructuring of defendant’s workforce so that African-Americans are assigned to jobs that they would have held in the absence of defendant’s past race discrimination; back pay and any other monetary relief, instatement or front pay, and other nonmonetary remedies necessary to make plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent whole from defendant’s past discrimination; and attorneys’ fees and expenses.
78. The class that the named plaintiff seeks to represent is too numerous to make joinder practicable. The proposed class consists of all African-Americans who sought promotions from the production technician position to more-desirable and
15

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 16 of 22
higher-paying jobs as described in paragraph 2 above, who may in the future seek such jobs, or who would in the past have sought such jobs in the absence of the discriminatory practices challenged in this case. The challenged employment discrimination makes joinder impracticable by preventing or discouraging AfricanAmerican employees from applying for or pursuing promotion opportunities, thereby making it impractical and inefficient to identify many members of the class prior to a determination of the merits of defendant’s class-wide liability.
79. The class representative’s interests are coextensive with those of the class in that she seeks to remedy defendant’s discriminatory employment practices so that African-Americans will no longer be prevented from obtaining promotions out of the production technician position. The class representative is able and willing to represent the class fairly and vigorously, as she pursues goals common to the class through this action. Plaintiff’s counsel is also qualified, experienced, and able to conduct the litigation and to meet the time and fiscal demands required to litigate an employment discrimination class action of this size and complexity. The combined interests, experience, and resources of plaintiff and her counsel to litigate competently the individual and class claims of race-based employment discrimination at issue satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
80. Certification of a class of similarly-situated African-Americans is the
16

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 17 of 22
most efficient and economical means of resolving the questions of law and fact that are common to the individual promotion claims of the named plaintiff. The individual promotion claims of the named plaintiff require resolution of the common question of whether defendant has engaged in a systemic pattern of race discrimination. The named plaintiff seeks remedies to undo the adverse effects of such discrimination in her life and career and to prevent continued race discrimination in the future. The named plaintiff has standing to seek such relief in part because of the adverse effect that race discrimination has on her own interest in working and living in conditions free from the pernicious effects of racial bias. In order to gain such relief for herself, as well as for the putative class members, the named plaintiff must first establish the existence of systemic race discrimination as the premise of the relief she seeks. Without class certification, the same evidence and issues would be subject to repeated re-litigation in a multitude of individual lawsuits with an attendant risk of inconsistent adjudications and conflicting obligations. Certification of a class of African-American production technicians affected by the common questions of law and fact is the most efficient and judicious means of presenting the evidence and arguments necessary to resolve such questions for plaintiff, the class, and defendant. The named plaintiff’s individual and class promotion claims are premised upon the traditional bifurcated method of proof and trial for systemic disparate treatment
17

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 18 of 22
claims of the type at issue in this complaint. Such a bifurcated method of proof and trial is the most efficient method of resolving such common issues.
81. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class by adopting and following systemic practices and procedures that are discriminatory on the basis of race. Race discrimination is defendant’s standard operating procedure rather than a sporadic occurrence. Defendant has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class by refusing to adopt or follow promotion selection procedures that do not systemically discriminate against African-Americans. Defendant’s systemic discrimination and refusal to act on grounds that are not racially discriminatory have made appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
82. Injunctive and declaratory remedies are the predominant relief sought. They are both dependent upon proof of defendant’s individual and class-wide liability at the end of Stage I of a bifurcated trial. Such determination at Stage I is also the essential predicate for the named plaintiff’s and class members’ entitlement to monetary and non-monetary remedies at Stage II of such a trial. Entitlement to declaratory and injunctive relief flows directly and automatically from proof of the common questions of law and fact regarding the existence of systemic racial discrimination. Such relief is the factual and legal predicate for the named plaintiff’s
18

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 19 of 22
and the class members’ entitlement to monetary and non-monetary remedies for individual losses caused by such systemic discrimination.
83. Alternatively, certification is sought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The common issues of fact and law affecting the promotion claims of the named plaintiff and the proposed class members, including but not limited to the common issues identified in the above paragraphs, predominate over any issues affecting only individual claims. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of the promotion claims of the named plaintiff and members of the proposed class. The cost of proving defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination makes it impracticable for the named plaintiff and members of the proposed class to control the prosecution of their claims individually.
84. Alternatively, certification is sought under a combination of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs. X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of the class she seeks to represent, requests the following relief:
a. On plaintiff’s individual demotion claim only, in addition to the relief requested below, compensatory damages;
19

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 20 of 22
b. Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause; c. Certification of the case as a class action maintainable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 (a) and (b)(2) and/or (b)(3) on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class, designation of plaintiff as representative of the class, and designation of her counsel of record as class counsel; d. A declaratory judgment that defendant’s employment practices alleged herein are illegal and in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981(A); e. A preliminary and permanent injunction against defendant and its partners, officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in racial discrimination in promotions; f. An Order requiring defendant to initiate and implement programs that (i) provide equal employment opportunities for African-American employees seeking advancement; (ii) remedy the effects of defendant’s past and present unlawful promotion practices described above; and (iii) eliminate the continuing effects of the discriminatory promotion practices described above; g. An Order requiring defendant to initiate and implement systems of recruiting and selecting African-American employees for zone leader, supervisor,
20

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 21 of 22
and quality specialist positions in a non-discriminatory manner; h. An Order establishing a task force on equality and fairness to
determine the effectiveness of defendant’s promotion procedures that would provide for (i) the monitoring, reporting, and retaining of jurisdiction to ensure equal employment opportunity, (ii) the assurance that injunctive relief is properly implemented, and (iii) a quarterly report setting forth information relevant to the determination of the effectiveness of these programs;
i. An Order placing or restoring plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent into those jobs they would now be occupying but for defendant’s discriminatory practices;
j. An award of back pay, instatement or front pay, retroactive seniority or status, lost benefits, preferential rights to jobs, and any other appropriate equitable relief to plaintiff and class members;
k. An award of punitive damages and nominal damages; l. An award of litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to plaintiff and class members; m. Prejudgment and post judgment interest; and n. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
21

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 14 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 22 of 22
Henry F. Sherrod III (ASB-1200-D63H) HENRY F. SHERROD III, P.C. 119 South Court Street P. O. Box 606 Florence, Alabama 35631-0606 Phone: 256-764-4141 Fax: 877-684-0802 Email: hsherrod@hiwaay.net
s/ Robert F. Childs, Jr. Robert F. Childs, Jr. (ASB-2223-C60R) Herman N. Johnson, Jr. (ASB-3607-R50J) WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS & QUINN LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500
Attorneys for Plaintiff

 
 Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31

Filed 09/09/2008

Page 1 of 18

FILED

2008 Sep-09 AM 10:54 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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

LINDA JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v. STEELCASE INC.
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV-07-C-0064-NE ) ) ) )

DEFENDANT STEELCASE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND IN OPPOSITION TO
CLASS CERTIFICATION

COMES now the Defendant (“Steelcase”) in the above captioned matter, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 23, and respectfully requests that this Court dismiss all class claims brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981(A) (“§1981”) and sounding in disparate impact and deny certification of the Plaintiff’s §1981 class disparate treatment claim as asserted in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
In support of this Motion, Steelcase says as follows: 1. Plaintiff Linda Johnson (“Johnson”) is an African-American woman employed at Steelcase’s Athens, Alabama manufacturing facility (“Steelcase Athens”). Johnson filed her original Complaint in this matter alleging

1

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 2 of 18
employment discrimination based on events surrounding her transfer from second to first shift at Steelcase Athens and the resulting loss of her duties as second shift, quality specialist back-up. 2. Steelcase filed its Answer, including denials and affirmative defenses on February 5, 2007. 3. On February 19, 2008, Johnson filed her First Amended Complaint in which she raised individual claims pursuant to both §1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and a class disparate treatment claim pursuant to §1981. (First Amended Complaint §§ V-VI.) A scheduling conference with the Court took place on February 28, 2008. Steelcase filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint on March 4, 2008. (The First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and hereby incorporated by reference.) 4. On July 28, 2008, Johnson filed her Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint, seeking to add an individual retaliation claim, individual failure to promote claims, and a Title VII class claim. On July 31, 2008, this Court rightly determined that the motion was untimely and denied the request to amend, but allowed Johnson to pursue her individual failure to
2

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 3 of 18
promote claims in the instant action. (The Court’s July 31, 2008 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference.) 5. Pursuant to §1981, Johnson seeks to represent a class of African American employees at Steelcase Athens consisting of three sub-groups:
a. Those who sought promotions from production technician; b. Those who may in the future seek promotions; and c. Those who would have sought promotion in the absence of the challenged practices. (See First Amended Complaint ¶ 2.)1 6. Johnson alternately describes the basis for the class claims as “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact.” (First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 66-71.) 7. However, the law is clear that § 1981 requires proof of intentional discrimination which must be adduced by direct or inferential proof. See Ferrill v. Parker Group, 168 F.3d 468, 472 (11th Cir. 1999). Therefore, disparate impact theories are limited to Title VII claims. See Larkin v. Pullman-Standard, 854 F.2d 1549, 1561 (11th Cir. 1988). 8. A showing of disparate impact through a neutral practice is insufficient to prove a §1981 violation because proof of discriminatory
1 Johnson makes it clear in the Proposed Pre-Trial Order submitted by the parties on September 5, 2008, that she does not seek certification of a nationwide class, but limits her § 1981 class claim to the Steelcase Athens facility.
3

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 4 of 18
intent is essential. Accordingly, only direct or inferential modes of proving intentional discrimination are available to the §1981 plaintiff. See Larkin, F.2d at 1561. 9. Because of the need to prove intent, the Eleventh Circuit held in Larkin that the plaintiff could not proceed with a disparate impact claim under § 1981. See id. 10. Likewise, Johnson’s class disparate impact claims can not be pursued under the mantle of § 1981 and are due to be dismissed with prejudice.
I. BASIS OF THE CLASS CLAIMS 11. While a court should not determine the merits of a claim at the class certification stage, it is appropriate to consider the merits of the case to the degree necessary to determine whether the requirements of class action rule will be satisfied. Heffner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. 443 F.3d 1330, 1337 (11th Cir. 2006). Here they clearly are not. 12. Steelcase Athens does not maintain a selection process for EEO category 5 and 6 jobs which treats African Americans differently than its other employees. At all times, Steelcase acted with the reasonable belief that it was operating its job selection system at Athens within the bounds of the applicable laws. Since 2005, excepting the instant case, Steelcase Athens
4

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 5 of 18
has had only five (5) complaints in which race was an issue, and none of those complaints concern job selection practices. 13. In that same time frame, Plaintiff’s complaint is the sole EEOC charge/lawsuit related to job selection practices. In May and June of 2008, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance conducted a compliance evaluation of employment practices at the Athens plant. The results did not identify Defendant’s job selection process as noncompliant. 14. Steelcase Athens’ excellent record is due in no small part to the emphasis which Steelcase places on diversity. Steelcase’s workforce diversity programs include an annual diversity forum, and diversity training for all new leaders. Steelcase also maintains an open door policy, encouraging any employee, regardless of job classification, to pursue any concerns or complaints to any manager, up to and including the CEO.
15. As a result of these practices, Steelcase has twice received the “Eve 2000 Award” from the United States Department of Labor which recognizes "exemplary voluntary efforts" in affirmative action and equal employment opportunity.
5

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 6 of 18
16. In addition to its open door policy, Steelcase also maintains a “Global Integrity Hotline” by which its employees can make anonymous complaints by way of a toll free number. Since 2005, Steelcase Athens has been the subject of only two (2) such complaints. Neither of those complaints raised issues of race or promotion practices.
17. Steelcase does not stop at promoting internal diversity, but also focuses on the larger community. Steelcase was the first of 65 corporations to file an amicus curie brief in support of the University of Michigan's claim that business needs a diverse workforce and that colleges need to remain committed to diverse student bodies. 18. Steelcase also maintains a supplier diversity program promoting the growth of minority businesses with the goal of increasing its annual corporate expenditures with minority suppliers. 19. The Steelcase corporate emphasis on diversity is reflected in the efforts made by the employees at Steelcase Athens to increase diversity. Since 2004, the percentage of African-Americans in the feeder classification (EEO 7) has increased from 17.8 % to more than 28%. As a result, the human resources department at Steelcase Athens is able to show marked increases in both EEO Category 6CA (Zone Leaders and Temporary Supervisors) and 6CA (Production Specialists). The number of African-
6

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 7 of 18
American zone leaders and supervisors seen a 100% increase (from 28 to 56) while the total work force has seen only a 40% increase. 20. Steelcase Athens maintains several posting boards in various locations throughout the facility. Those boards are near time clocks, restrooms, break rooms, and the cafeteria. Employees of all races work in every area of the plant, and have time before shift, after shift, and during breaks and lunch to locate a posting board to check job postings. In addition, job opportunities are disseminated to supervisors and zone leaders who regularly announce job opportunities to employees in the area at the start of shifts. Steelcase Athens’ practice is to post permanent job opportunities. More than 100 jobs were posted during the time period in question. 21. Steelcase Athens uses a variety of job selection procedures related to the job categories in question; none are which are designed to be discriminatory. Targeted interviewing by panels of two or more, experience, area of work, seniority, and the requirements of the formal job descriptions themselves all can and do play a role in candidate selection. 22. Because factors surrounding selection decisions are varied, each decision requires an examination of highly individualized facts. For example, Johnson claims that in 2005 she was denied a promotion to zone leader in the Fabric Center. However, a review of the facts shows that
7

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 8 of 18
Steelcase Athens can proffer a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its candidate selection. 23. The posting for zone leader indicated that preference would be given to the qualified candidate within the “value stream” (Fabric Center) of the posted position. At the time, Johnson was assigned to the value stream identified as “Skins.” The candidate selected was both qualified and assigned to the Fabric Center value stream. 24. The highly individualized inquiry needed to address each selection among hundreds of selections under a theory of disparate treatment thus destroys the typicality and commonalty requirements of Rule 23(a) and make this case inappropriate for class certification.
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FED. R. CIV. P. 23(A)
25. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) provides that one or more members of a class may sue on behalf of a class only if
a.) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
b.) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; c.) the claims of the representative are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and
8

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 9 of 18
d.) the representative parties will adequately and fairly represent the class.
26. The burden to make these showings rests with the named plaintiff. In the instant case, the named plaintiff, Linda Johnson, can not meet that burden. A. Numerosity 27. Numerosity is not merely a matter of number, but also entails consideration of the ease of identifying members and determining their addresses, facility of making service and their geographic dispersion. See Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1980).2 28. In the instant case, a determination must first be made as to the definition of the class. Johnson seeks to define the class as production technicians who have sought promotions, those who would have but for discriminatory practices, and those who may in the future seek such jobs. 29. Any definition of class must be limited to those who have actually applied for promotion. In order for non-applicants (those who “would have” or “may in the future” seek promotions) to sustain a claim of discrimination, they must show a justifiable belief that applying for a
2 Decisions rendered by the Fifth Circuit prior to the 1981 split between the Circuits are binding authority in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 1981).
9

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 10 of 18
promotion would be futile. See Taylor v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp., 788 F.2d 1455, 1462 (11th Cir. 1986). 30. The evidence is clear that application for promotion by AfricanAmericans is far from futile at Steelcase Athens. African-Americans at Steelcase Athens not only regularly apply for promotions, but have a higher success rate than non-minorities of garnering those promotions when they do apply. For example, of those production technicians seeking promotion into the production specialist category (from EEO code 7AA to 6CA) between March 2006 and February 2008, that success rate was 42.8% for African-Americans while it was between 23.8% and 33% for others during that same time period. (See SCAS DOC 023344 attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by reference.) 31. The proper definition of any class, then, is limited to those African-American employees of Steelcase Athens who have applied for and been denied promotion into one of the contested categories since January 1, 2005. For production specialists, zone leader, and quality positions, those persons number less than 30. (See Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4 consisting of Plaintiff’s Exhibits 70 & 71 to Depo. Harriet McMeans and PS Job Postings 05-14 thru 06-09.) Because of the small number, and because identities and addresses of those persons may easily be
10

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 11 of 18
determined from Steelcase personnel records, and those persons are more likely than not to live in a compact geographic area, the putative class does not meet the numerosity requirements. See Garcia, 618 F.2d at 267(holding that a class of 31 where the claimants were all known and easily identified can not be certified). B. Commonality and Typicality 32. “In many ways, the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) overlap. Both requirements focus on whether a sufficient nexus exists between the legal claims of the named class representatives and those of the individual class members to warrant certification.” Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1278 (11th Circuit 2000). 33. The prosecution of disparate treatment claims weighs against finding commonality and typicality as required by Rule 23. See Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 n. 10 (11th Cir. 1992); Nelson v. United States Steel, 709 F.2d 675, 679 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1983). 34. That is especially true in this cases where putative class members are work in different areas, on different shifts, and the named plaintiff herself challenges decisions which were not made by one authority, but are decentralized. In particular, Johnson’s allegations
11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 12 of 18

related to unfair temporary work assignments which are made according to business needs, on the fly, by individual supervisors from day to day, in different “value streams,” and on different shifts require individual analysis and are not subject to generalized proof. See generally Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 714 (11th Cir. 2004); Lumpkin v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 161 F.R.D. 480, 482 (M.D. Ga. 1995)(persuasive and not binding).
III. REQUIREMENTS OF FED. R. CIV. P. 23(B)

35.

In addition to the certification requirements of Rule 23(a), a

class action is not maintainable where it does not meet one of the three

prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).

36. In the instant case, Johnson seeks to maintain a § 1981

disparate treatment class action pursuant to either Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(b)(2), or 23(b)(3), or as a hybrid class action.

A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

37. Rule 23(b)(2) provides that a class action may be maintained

where the relief sought is primarily equitable. Any monetary relief

requested must be incidental to injunctive or declaratory relief.

12

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 13 of 18
38. Johnson cannot maintain a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because she seeks monetary compensation on behalf of the class in the form of punitive damages. (First Amended Complaint § VII.) 39. Where the class seeks legal relief, as it does here in the form of punitive damages, that relief ceases to be incidental to the equitable relief provide for under Rule 23(b)(2) and begins to breakdown commonality. See Prado-Steiman, 221 F.3d 1266 at 1278. B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) 40. In order to maintain a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the named plaintiff must show that questions of law or fact related to the class as a whole predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, and that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. 41. Under certain circumstances, a §1981 employment discrimination class may avoid the need to show intent to discriminate against each individual member of the class and survive the question of predominance by showing a pattern or practice of discrimination. See International Bro. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977). Such a showing may raise a presumption that individual class members
13

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 14 of 18
have been discriminated against. See Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 211 F.3d 1228, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000).
42. However, such a framework cannot be applied in the instant
case where the putative class seeks punitive damages pursuant to its
§1981 claim, regardless of the fact that Johnson attempts to frame
punitive damages as “group” relief. The framework in Teamsters applies
only where the relief sought is equitable, not legal. See Rutstein, 211
F.3d at1239.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (parallel citations omitted), makes it clear that in order to receive compensatory damages, individual plaintiffs must prove that “injury was actually caused.” This is especially true since compensatory damages under section 1981 can include damages for emotional and psychological distress. (Citation omitted.) The Teamsters framework is therefore inappropriate in the instant case because the establishment of a policy or practice of discrimination can not trigger the defendant’s liability for damages to all of the plaintiffs in the putative class. . . . The idea that individual injury could be settled on a class wide basis is preposterous. Id.3(emphasis added).
43. Rutstein makes it clear that establishment of a practice of
discrimination resulting in disparate treatment can not trigger liability for
damages to the putative class as a whole. Id. Because individual class
3 In addition, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the Teamster’s frame work did not apply because Rutstein was not an employment case.
14

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 15 of 18

members in the instant case would “have to prove actual damage in order

to receive compensation for their loss, the [pattern] and practice issue

cannot possibly predominate over all of the other issues in the case that

are necessarily capable of only individualized resolution” and Johnson

can not maintain this action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). Rutstein, 211

F.3d at1241.

C.

Hybrid Certification

44. Likewise, this case can not be maintained as a “hybrid” class

action. A hybrid class action is one in which class members seek

individual monetary relief, typically back pay, in addition to class wide

injunctive or declaratory relief. See Cox v. ACIPCO, 784 F.2d 1546, 1554 (11th Cir. 1986).

45. The Eleventh Circuit has allowed hybrid class actions,

bifurcating liability from the determination of monetary damages in the

form of back pay, where punitive damages were not at stake. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 965 (11th Cir. 2008); Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1983).

46. However, both Holmes and Davis included Title VII claims,

where bifurcation of compensatory damages would be incidental to the

injunctive relief sought.

15

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 16 of 18
47. Even within the framework of Title VII, the Eleventh Circuit has twice noted the difficulty of maintaining a hybrid or bifurcated procedure when a § 1981 class claim seeking punitive damages is present. See Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 721 n. 14 (11th Cir. 2004)(“Significantly these cases do not hold that such a process is appropriate . . . when highly individualized awards of compensatory and punitive damages are at stake.”); Davis, 516 F.3d at 965 n. 18 (suggesting that the maintenance of a bifurcated Rule 23(b)(2) class action for all the relief, including punitive damages, is problematical). 48. In the instant case where the only class claim is a §1981 disparate treatment claim a request for punitive damages must necessarily result in a highly individualized inquiries of fact, a hybrid class action can not be maintained. The request for monetary damages combined with the high likelihood that disparate treatment allegations will also need to be scrutinized on an individual basis indicates that certification of the proposed class is inappropriate. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Steelcase respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Johnson’s disparate impact claim with prejudice and decline to certify a class as to the remaining pattern and practice disparate treatment claim.
16

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 31 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 17 of 18
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Roslyn Crews ____________ KENNETH L. THOMAS (THO 043) FREDERIC A. BOLLING (BOL 030) ROSLYN CREWS (CRE 013) AFRIKA C. PARCHMAN (CHI 023)

 
 Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 1 of 11

FILED
2008 Sep-09 PM 05:15 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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

LINDA JOHNSON, individually and on )

behalf of all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STEELCASE, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action Number 5:07-cv-00064-UWC

PRETRIAL ORDER

A pretrial conference was held in the above case on September 8, 2008, wherein, or as a result of which, the following proceedings were held and action taken:

1. Appearances. Appearing at the conference were: Henry F. Sherrod III, Robert F. Childs, Jr., and Herman N. Johnson, Jr. for Plaintiff and the Class; and Kenneth L. Thomas and Roslyn Crews for Defendant.

2. Jurisdiction and venue. Subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1334. Personal jurisdiction and venue are not contested.

3. Parties and trial counsel. Any fictitious defendants are deleted; the parties before the Court are correctly named as set out below; and the designated trial counsel for the parties are as set out below:

PARTIES

TRIAL COUNSEL

Plaintiff: Linda Johnson

Henry F. Sherrod III Robert F. Childs, Jr. Herman N. Johnson, Jr.

Page 1 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 2 of 11

Defendant: Steelcase, Inc.

Kenneth L. Thomas Roslyn Crews Afrika C. Parchman

4. Pleadings. The following pleadings have been allowed: first amended complaint; answer.

5. Statement of the case.

A. Agreed summary.

This is a race discrimination case, brought under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

B. Plaintiff’s position.

(i). Class claims. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated African-American employees of Steelcase at its Athens, Alabama plant holding jobs in EEO category 7 (production technician) who were not selected by Steelcase for permanent positions in EEO categories 5 and 6. The positions in EEO categories 5 and 6 include quality specialist, quality control technician, zone leader, temporary supervisor, and production specialist. Plaintiff brings disparate treatment class claims.

Plaintiff seeks for the class a declaratory judgment and equitable and injunctive relief pursuant to a) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and which is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §1981a, and b) the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981(A).

Defendant maintains a selection process for EEO category 5 and 6 jobs that demonstrates a pattern and practice and effect of discriminating against AfricanAmerican employees holding positions in EEO category 7, production technician.

Defendant contracts with the federal government and has known for years that African-American employees in the majority of its EEO classifications were underutilized. In spite of this underutilization, Steelcase has taken no action to ensure

Page 2 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 3 of 11
the selection process it utilized was fair, nor to increase African-American representation in these categories. Defendant did not even take action to make sure open positions were equally known to African-American employees, nor to encourage African-Americans to apply for the jobs in which they are underutilized.
Discrimination in the Steelcase selection process occurred at every level and has been effected by the exercise of subjective discretion by Steelcase’s predominantly-Caucasian management employees. Human Resources personnel are directly involved in the selection process and have permitted Caucasian managers to manipulate the selection process to the disadvantage of African-American production technician employees.
Historically, Steelcase has allowed its Athens management, predominantly Caucasian, the discretion to decide whether and when to post jobs. Frequently, jobs were never posted and were filled on a long-term “temporary” basis or on a shortterm “temporary” basis. The selection of persons to fill positions on a permanent and temporary basis is a matter of subjective discretion primarily exercised by defendant’s predominantly Caucasian managerial staff. The filling of jobs on a temporary basis has been used to train and develop candidates for promotions. These practices have been used to discriminate against African-American employees and has had the effect of limiting the advancement of African-American employees out of the production technician position.
Even when jobs are posted, Caucasian managers have been permitted to manipulate the posting and selection process to disadvantage African-American production technicians seeking advancement.
Jobs that were posted were posted less prominently in the areas in which most of the African-American production technician employees worked. Recognizing deficiencies in its posting process, Steelcase relied on supervisory employees to inform production technicians about promotion opportunities that were posted. Frequently, only hand-picked individuals would be informed regarding posted jobs. These practices have been used to discriminate against African-American employees and has had the effect of limiting the advancement of African-American employees out of the production technician position.
Steelcase management frequently decides who will be selected for a job before
Page 3 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 4 of 11
it authorizes the job to be posted. Often, the pre-selected person is already working in the position on a temporary basis. Even if an individual has not been pre-selected, Steelcase management can cancel the posting and re-post after additional Caucasian persons have been encouraged to apply if it is not satisfied with the candidates for the position. These practices have been used to discriminate against African-American employees and have had the effect of limiting the advancement of African-American employees out of the production technician position.
Steelcase management has manipulated the selection process in other ways with the purpose and effect of limiting the advancement of African-American employees out of the production technician position. These additional methods of manipulation include, but are not limited to, not interviewing disfavored candidates; skipping the interview process entirely; changing interview scores to a favored candidate’s advantage; “losing” applications or resumes; exaggerating the preferred or required job requirements; transferring an employee into an open position to avoid posting that position; and selecting multiple persons for multiple jobs on a posting that is for a single job.
(ii). Individual Claims. Plaintiff also brings individual claims on her own behalf under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and which is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §1981a, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981(A), for her demotion from backup quality specialist to production technician in January 2006 and for Steelcase’s denial of promotions to her.
After Plaintiff was denied promotions in February and March 2005, she applied for and received a promotion to a formerly all-Caucasian department, the quality department, as a backup quality specialist. After her promotion, Steelcase did not train her for the position, forced her to train herself, and transferred her between shifts to satisfy the preference of a Caucasian employee, which was contrary to past practice. Then, Steelcase, as a pretext for discrimination, demoted Plaintiff back to production technician using an invalid transfer request made prior to her promotion to the quality job. Thereafter, she was replaced by a Caucasian female who received top-notch training.
In August 2007, Plaintiff interviewed for a full-time quality technician position that opened up as part of a reorganization of the quality department. Though
Page 4 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 5 of 11
Plaintiff’s interview scores entitled her to the last available position, interview team members lowered plaintiff’s scores and increased the preferred Caucasian candidate’s scores so that plaintiff would not receive the job.
Thereafter, in approximately October 2007, the regional quality manager, based on advice from human resources personnel, did not post quality technician backup jobs even though backups were needed. Emails between the manager and human resources personnel show the jobs were not posted. The jobs were not posted because Plaintiff was a natural candidate for one of these positions and likely to apply.
After October 2007, Steelcase denied Plaintiff the opportunity to apply for zone leader positions for which she was a natural candidate by not posting positions in her area, including one she specifically spoke to her supervisor about.
In April and May 2008 Plaintiff applied for and was denied a production specialist position. In May 2008, Plaintiff applied for another zone leader position and did not receive the position. In August 2008, Plaintiff attempted to transfer from a level 1 production technician position to a level 2 production technician position. She was entitled to the position based on seniority but human resources personnel treated her request as a request for a transfer to a level 1 position in a different area.
Plaintiff individually seeks appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
C. Defendant’s position.
(i). Class Claims. Defendant does not maintain a selection process for EEO category 5 and 6 jobs which treats African Americans differently than its other employees. At all times, defendant acted with the reasonable belief that it was operating its job selection system within the bounds of the applicable laws. Since 2005, excepting the instant case, Defendant has had only five complaints in which race was an issue, and none of those complaints concern job selection practices. In that same time frame, Plaintiff’s complaint is the sole EEOC charge/lawsuit related to job selection practices. In May and June of 2008, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance conducted a compliance evaluation of employment practices at the Athens plant. The results did not identify Defendant’s job selection process as non-compliant.
Page 5 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 6 of 11
Defendant maintains several posting boards in various locations throughout the Athens facility. Those boards are near time clocks, restrooms, break rooms and the cafeteria. Employees of all races work in every area of the plant, and have time both before shift, after shift, and during breaks and lunch to locate a posting board to check job postings. In addition, job opportunities are disseminated to supervisors and zone leaders who regularly announce job opportunities to employees in the area at the start of shifts.
Defendant’s practice is to post permanent job opportunities. Whether a permanent position actually exists is based on a combination of business factors including, but not limited to, the length of time the work is expected to last, budgets, and available work force. Employees may perform higher paying work on a temporary basis to cover for illnesses, vacations, or brief upturns in work. Working in these temporary positions does not ensure that a candidate will be given a permanent position should one actually become available. African Americans have been, and continue to be among those selected to perform both production and supervisory tasks on temporary assignment.
Defendant has made progress in improving its African-American utilization in EEO categories at issue, by increasing the African American representation in the pool from which selections are made, EEO 7. As a result, the percentage of African Americans in those categories has increased, dramatically so in the case of category 6BA which includes Zone Leaders and Temporary Supervisors.
Defendant uses a variety of job selection procedures related to the job categories in question; none of which are designed to be discriminatory. Targeted interviewing by panels of two or more persons, experience, area of work, and seniority all can and do play a role in candidate selection.
(ii). Individual Claims. Plaintiff applied for two zone leader positions in February and March 2005. Plaintiff withdrew her name from consideration for one position. The other position was awarded to a qualified applicant who was in the same “value stream.” The “value stream” preference was clearly indicated on the physical job posting and was a standard policy at that time. Plaintiff was not assigned to the object “value stream” at the time the job became available.
Page 6 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 7 of 11
In late 2005, Plaintiff applied for and was awarded a 2nd shift back up position in the quality department. The job entailed performing quality control tasks when the employee who “owned” the position was out for any reason, or when an increase in work required more quality coverage. Plaintiff understood that the work would be intermittent and that performing quality work on a back up basis did not guarantee her a promotion into a permanent quality position.
Shortly there after, Defendant began to experience quality issues on its relatively new 3rd shift. The quality manager asked Plaintiff if she would go to 3rd shift to cover the need. He did not tell Plaintiff that the move was permanent. However, the coverage was needed every day. Therefore, there was no danger that Plaintiff would work her production technician job and discover at the end of 2nd shift that she was needed to work an additional shift in quality. Plaintiff’s absence from 2nd shift did, however, leave only one quality person available on 2nd shift. Eventually, the quality manager sent Plaintiff back to 2nd shift where her permanent position as a production technician was to provide back up in quality. Plaintiff remained the back up quality specialist on second shift. Because there were more than half a dozen quality specialists on first shift, the quality manager filled his need to cover 3rd shift from his first shift availability.
Prior to being given the back up quality assignment, Plaintiff made an electronic request for transfer to 1st shift. Such transfers are seniority based and Plaintiff’s request was honored when she was high senior on the list of those requesting such transfers. It is not unusual for employees to take pay cuts and/or demotions to transfer to first shift because the shift most closely approximates regular business hours. Plaintiff did not go to the Human Resources Department and raise questions as to why her transfer request was honored. She went to 1st shift and proceeded to work.
In August 2007, Defendant reorganized its quality department nationwide and posted all quality jobs for selection regardless of whether there were incumbents. Plaintiff applied for a quality specialist position and participated in the interview process in October of 2007. At the end of all interviews, neither Plaintiff nor the white male she identifies as being given preferential treatment, Joel McMunn, achieved scores high enough to be offered a permanent position. Neither was initially offered a position in the reorganized quality department. In addition, at least two
Page 7 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 8 of 11
white males who held the positions on a permanent basis for many years prior to the reorganization also failed to qualify for one of the permanent positions.
In 2007, Defendant had at least one zone leader take extended leave and therefore Defendant moved existing zone leaders in order to cover that work.
Defendant learned for the first time, on September 4, 2008, when its counsel received the initial draft of this Proposed Pretrial Order that plaintiff has additional denial of promotion claims which arose in April and May of 2008. These claims were not identified in the initial complaint and/or the amended complaint. Thus, Defendant objects to the addition of these claims on the grounds that it would be unduly prejudiced if these claims are allowed without Defendant having the full benefit of discovery. In the alternative, Defendant respectfully requests that it be permitted additional time to conduct discovery related to these new claims.
6. Discovery and other pretrial procedures. The parties are given leave to proceed with further discovery provided it is commenced in time to be completed by October 31, 2008.
7. Voir Dire Questions and Requested Jury Instructions. When the case is called for trial, the parties shall present to the Court any special questions or topics for voir dire examination of the jury venire, and, to the extent the same can be anticipated any requests for instructions to the jury (including extracts of any statutes on which instructions are requested).
8. Damages. By September 26, 2008, Plaintiff shall provide to the Defendant’s counsel a list itemizing all damages claimed to have been incurred, showing the amount (and, where applicable, the method of computation) of such items.
9. Expert Witnesses.
A. By September 23, 2008, Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide to Defendant’s counsel a list stating the names and addresses of any expert witnesses whom she expects to offer at trial and the expert’s report embodying the information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(A).
Page 8 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 9 of 11
B. By October 16, 2008, Defendant’s counsel shall provide to Plaintiff’s counsel a list stating the names and addresses of any expert witnesses whom it expects to offer at trial and the expert’s report embodying the information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(A).
10. Regular Witnesses. By October 31, 2006, counsel for the parties shall exchange lists stating the names and addresses of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) whom they expect to offer at trial.
Unless specifically agreed between the parties or allowed by the Court for good cause shown, the parties shall be precluded from offering substantive evidence through any witness not so listed. The listing of a witness does not commit the party to have such witness available at trial or to call such witness to testify, but it does preclude the party from objecting to the call of such witness by another party. Except to the extent that written notice to the contrary is given within five (5) days after receiving such list, each party shall be deemed to have agreed that the conditions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3) are satisfied with respect to the deposition of any listed medical expert or of any other persons identified in the list as one whose testimony is expected to be offered by deposition.
11. Exhibits. Counsel for the parties shall, by October 31, 2008, exchange lists describing all writings, recordings, documents, bills, reports, records, photographs and other exhibits (collectively called “exhibits”) which they may utilize at trial. The blanket listing of bulk exhibits (e.g., “all documents obtained during discovery, all documents produced by defendants”) does not comply with the provisions of this paragraph.
Unless specifically agreed between the parties or allowed by the Court for good cause shown, the parties shall be precluded from offering as substantive evidence any exhibit not listed. Except where beyond a party's control or otherwise impracticable (e.g., records from an independent third-party being obtained through subpoena), each party shall make such exhibits available for inspection and copying. Except to the extent written notice to the contrary is filed with the Clerk of the Court within five (5) days after receiving such list, each party shall be deemed to have agreed (for purposes of this litigation only):
(a) that the originals of the listed exhibits are authentic within Fed. R.
Page 9 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 10 of 11
Evid. 901 and 902;
(b) that a duplicate, as defined in Fed. R. Evid. 1001, of the listed exhibits is admissible to the same extent as would be the original;
(c) that any of the listed exhibits purporting to be records described in Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) meet the requirements of such rule without extrinsic evidence;
(d) that any of the listed exhibits purporting to be correspondence were sent by the purported sender and received by the purported recipient on approximately the dates shown or in accordance with customary delivery schedules;
(e) that any listed photographs fairly and accurately portray the scene therein depicted as of the time when made;
(f) that any listed bills for services or materials are reasonable in amount for the services or materials therein billed; and
(g) that each of the listed exhibits is admissible at trial, subject only to Fed. R. Evid. 403 and relevancy objections.
The number assigned to an exhibit on the list will be the number given to the exhibit when offered at trial, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
Each party shall provide to the Court a copy of each key exhibit, or relevant portion thereof, to be utilized in the direct examination of a witness. Counsel shall make sufficient copies of each such exhibit for publication to each juror.
12. Special medical provisions. Counsel for all parties are hereby granted the right to inspect and copy all hospital and medical reports relative to the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, condition, and history of Linda Johnson, together with the right to depose, with due notice, or interview (in person or otherwise) all physicians, administrators, and other personnel in connection therewith. A copy of this Order shall constitute sufficient authority for such inspection, copying or interview. Any party claiming damages for his or her own personal injuries shall submit, if requested by counsel for an opposing party, to a medical examination by a physician selected by (and compensated by) such opposing party, but counsel for the injured party shall
Page 10 of 11

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 32 Filed 09/09/08 Page 11 of 11
be furnished a copy of any reports of such examination and shall have the right to depose or interview the examining physician.
13. Trial. The trial of this action is hereby set for the week beginning at 9:00 am, on November 10, 2008, in Decatur, Alabama.
It is hereby ORDERED that the above provisions be binding on all parties unless modified by further order for good cause shown.
______________________________ U.W. Clemon
United States District Judge
Page 11 of 11

 
 Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 38 Filed 10/06/08 Page 1 of 4

FILED
2008 Oct-06 PM 04:01 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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

LINDA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself )

and others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STEELCASE, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action Number 5:07-cv-00064-UWC

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

A. Findings of Fact

Based on the evidence adduced at the class certification hearing, the Court

makes the followings Findings of Fact:

1. Plaintiff Linda Johnson seeks to represent a class of all black Americans

who, between January 5, 2005, to the present, were/are employed by Steelcase,

Incorporated in production technician (EEO-7) positions and who were qualified, but

not selected, for vacancies in permanent positions of quality specialists and quality

control technicians (EEO 5BA), zone leaders and temporary supervisors (EEO 6BA),

and productions specialists (EEO 6CA).

2. Plaintiff has been and continues to be employed by Defendant as a

Page 1 of 4

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 38 Filed 10/06/08 Page 2 of 4
production technician in the defined time frame, and she unsuccessfully sought the positions of zone leader, quality specialist, and production specialist.
3. There are at least 140 members of the putative class. 4. There are several factual and legal questions common to the class. These include, without limitation:
a) whether Defendant’s promotions to EEO 5 and EEO 6 jobs are made on a racially discriminatory basis;
b) whether putative class members are effectively notified of vacancies in EEO 5 and EEO 6 positions, as they occur;
c) whether the exercise of subjective discretion by Defendant’s white managers results in the exclusion of putative class members from certain positions because of their race;
d) whether Defendant’s failure to post certain jobs intentionally discriminates against putative class members on racial grounds;
e) whether Defendant’s white managers manipulate the posting of certain jobs to exclude members of the putative class;
f) whether Defendant’s white managers fail to post certain jobs for the purpose of excluding members of the putative class;
g) whether Defendant’s white managers use temporary vacancies to train
Page 2 of 4

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 38 Filed 10/06/08 Page 3 of 4
white employees for certain permanent jobs, while excluding putative class members from such temporary vacancies;
h) whether Defendant’s interview process for various jobs, and/or the manipulation of interview scores for such jobs intentionally discriminates against putative class members;
i) whether Defendant’s filling of multiple positions from a single job posting discriminates against putative class members; and
j) whether the Defendant’s employment practices violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
5. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of other members of the putative class. 6. Plaintiff is mindful of the duties of a class representative and she is willing and capable of fulfilling those duties vigorously. She is familiar with the lawsuit and she has ongoing contacts with the members of the putative class. She has no interests antagonistic to those of the class. There is no collusion between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel is fully competent and experienced in the representation of plaintiffs in employment class actions.
B. Conclusions of Law 1. Plaintiff is a member of the class on whose behalf she sues. 2. The class sought to be represented by Plaintiff is so numerous that joinder
Page 3 of 4

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 38 Filed 10/06/08 Page 4 of 4
of all its members is impracticable. 3. There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and the putative
class. 4. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the putative class. 5. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the putative class. 6. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class; and the
relief sought for the class is equitable (i.e., promotions, backpay, injunction against future discrimination, and attorney’s fees).
By separate order, the Court will grant the motion for class certification. Done this 6th day of October, 2008.
______________________________ U.W. Clemon
United States District Judge
Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 39 Filed 10/06/08 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

FILED
2008 Oct-06 PM 04:02 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

LINDA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself )

and others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STEELCASE, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action Number 5:07-cv-00064-UWC

CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

Based on the accompanying Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and

pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), the Court hereby CERTIFIES the following class:

all black Americans who, between January 5, 2005, to the present, were/are employed by Steelcase, Incorporated in production technician (EEO-7) positions and who were qualified but not selected for vacancies in permanent positions of quality specialists and quality control technicians (EEO 5BA), zone leaders and temporary supervisors (EEO 6BA), and productions specialists (EEO 6CA).

A copy of this Order forthwith shall be posted on the employee bulletin

boards of the Defendant.

Done this 6th day of October, 2008.

______________________________ U.W. Clemon
United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 39 Filed 10/06/08 Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 66 Filed 11/26/08 Page 1 of 5

FILED
2008 Nov-26 PM 02:39 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTH EASTERN DIVISION

LINDA JOHNSON, and the Class she seeks to represent,
Plaintiffs, v.
STEELCASE INC.,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: CV-07-C-00064-NE ) Honorable U. W. Clemon ) ) ) )

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff, Linda Johnson, on behalf of herself and a class which she seeks to represent and Defendant, Steelcase Inc., (“Steelcase”) by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby jointly move the Court for an Order:
(1) Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement; and (2) Setting a Fairness Hearing. In support of this Motion, these parties state as follows: 1. The above-styled lawsuit was filed against Steelcase by Linda Johnson on January 19, 2007. Johnson initially brought the lawsuit on her own behalf. 2. Steelcase answered the complaint, denied any wrongdoing, denied its

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 66 Filed 11/26/08 Page 2 of 5
actions violated any federal law, and asserted a number of affirmative defenses. 3. Thereafter, Linda Johnson filed a Motion For Leave to File a First
Amended Complaint on January 24, 2008, adding class allegations. The Motion for Leave was granted on February 19, 2008.
4. Steelcase answered the First Amended Complaint, denied any wrongdoing, deemed its actions did not violate any federal law and asserted a number of affirmative defenses.
5. On September 8th and 9th, 2008, a Class Certification Hearing was held after which, the Court certified the following class:
All black Americans who, between January 5, 2005, to the present were/are employed by Steelcase, Incorporated in Production Technician (EEO-7) positions and who were qualified but not selected for vacancies in permanent positions of Quality Specialists and Quality Control Technicians (EEO-5BA), Zone Leaders and Temporary Supervisors (EEO-6BA) and Production Specialists (EEO-6CA). 6. On October 6, 2008, the Court entered an Order certifying the class set forth in Paragraph 5 above. 7. On October 14, 2008, the defendant filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) Petition seeking an immediate hearing on the Class Certification Order entered by the Court on October 6, 2008, and an Emergency Stay. 8. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) Petition
2

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 66 Filed 11/26/08 Page 3 of 5
on November 5, 2008 and denied the Emergency Motion To Stay as moot. 9. All Parties recognize that there is always substantial uncertainty as to the
outcome of a case, that if this case were to be litigated fully, it would be extremely expensive and time-consuming, and that a prompt resolution of this case is in the best interests of all the Parties.
10. Thus, following approximately twenty-two (22) months of protracted litigation, including the production of thousands of pages of documents, as well as databases, numerous depositions, and substantial written discovery, the Parties have agreed upon a compromise settlement of the disputed claims in this action, the terms and provisions of which are embodied in the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and is submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.
11. Without detailing all of the material terms, provisions and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, the parties state that the Settlement Agreement provides declaratory and injunctive relief, implementation of a new selection process for Quality Specialists, Quality Control Technicians, Zone Leaders, Temporary Supervisors, and Production Specialists, monetary relief for the named plaintiff and Class Members, a promotion for the named plaintiff, and an award of attorney’s fees and costs for Class Counsel. In return, the Named Plaintiff and the putative
3

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 66 Filed 11/26/08 Page 4 of 5
class agree to provide a release to Steelcase and to the dismissal of this case with prejudice.
12. The Settlement Agreement is conditioned upon the entry of a Preliminary Approval Order that contains the provisions set forth in Paragraph X of the Settlement Agreement. A proposed Preliminary Approval Order, which the Parties agree satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, is attached as Exhibit B to this Motion.
13. The Parties are presently negotiating the terms regarding payment for the Claims Administrator’s services. In addition, the Parties have not yet determined an appropriate estimate as to the value of creating, implementing, monitoring a new selection process at the Athens Facility for Quality Specialist and Quality Control Technician (EEO-5BA), Zone Leader and Temporary Supervisor (EEO-6BA) and Production Specialist (EEO-6CA) positions. The Parties will continue their deliberation on these issues and apprize the Court on Wednesday, December 3, 2008, as to their resolution of these issues.
WHEREFORE, the parties move the Court for the entry of an Order: (1). Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement; and (2). Setting a Fairness Hearing.
4

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 66 Filed 11/26/08 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Herman N. Johnson, Jr. Robert F. Childs Herman N. Johnson, Jr. WIGGINS, CHILDS QUINN PANTAZIS, P.C. The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203
Henry F. Sherrod, III HENRY F. SHERROD, III, P. C. 119 South Court Street P. O. Box 606 Florence, Alabama 35631-0606
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Linda Johnson, Named Plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent.
/s/ Roslyn Crews Kenneth L. Thomas Roslyn Crews African Parchman THOMAS, MEANS, GILLIS & SEAY, P. C. 505 20th Street, North Suite 400 Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Attorneys for Defendant, Steelcase, Inc.
5

 
 Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 1 of 34

FILED
2008 Dec-10 PM 05:45 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

LINDA JOHNSON, on behalf of

)

herself and others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

STEELCASE, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action Number 5:07-cv-00064-UWC

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The parties have jointly moved the Court for approval of a settlement

between Plaintiff Linda Johnson, individually and as Class Representative,

(“Plaintiffs”), and defendant, Steelcase, Inc. (“Steelcase”). The Court has been

advised that the parties have agreed, subject to Court approval following notice to

the Class Members and a hearing, to settle this action upon the terms and

conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), appended to this

Order as Attachment “A,” at pp. 5-27.

Page 1 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 2 of 34

The Court has now thoroughly reviewed the Agreement, as well as the entire

record in this case. Based upon this review and consideration, the Court hereby

makes the following Findings of Fact.

1.Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims at issue in this

action, as well as to the parties to this proceeding.

2. Previous Proceedings. Substantial discovery has been initiated and

completed in this case. Subsequent to discovery, the parties have engaged in arms-

length settlement discussions.

3. The Certified Class.

On September 9, 2008, on its findings and

conclusion that the named Plaintiff satisfies all of the requirements of F.R.Civ. P.

(“Rule”)23(a) and (b)(2), the Court certified the following class in this case:

All black Americans who, between January 5, 2005, to the present were/are employed by Steelcase, Incorporated in Production Technician (EEO-7) positions and who were qualified but not selected for vacancies in permanent positions of Quality Specialists and Quality Control Technicians (EEO-5BA), Zone Leaders and Temporary Supervisors (EEO-6BA) and Production Specialists (EEO-6CA).

The certification remains effective for purposes of this Settlement.

4. Notice to the Class. Although notice is not required in an action under

Rule 23(b)(2), the Court requires that notice be provided to the Class Member to

assure that their due process rights are protected. The Court finds and concludes

Page 2 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 3 of 34
that the notice required by this Order meets all applicable constitutional standards , both in terms of its substance and the manner in which it is to be disseminated. The Court further finds that reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the most current addresses for all Class Members. The approved Notice is appended to this Order as “Attachment B,” at pp. 28-30.
Based on these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as well as the Court’s review of the entire file, and its careful review of the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Court hereby PRELIMINARILY APPROVES the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Commencing at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at the Federal Courthouse, 400 Wells Street, in the City of Decatur, Alabama, the Court will conduct a FAIRNESS HEARING on whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally approved.
The provisions of the Settlement regarding notice and other matters related to the Fairness Hearing are hereby incorporated herein and made part hereof as if fully set forth.
The approved Claim Form is appended to this Order as Attachment “C,” at pp. 34-37.
Page 3 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 4 of 34 ______________________________ U.W. Clemon United States District Judge
Page 4 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 5 of 34

Attachment “A”
IN THE UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

LINDA JOHNSON, and the Class She Seeks to Represent,
Plaintiffs, v.
STEELCASE INC.,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: CV-07-C-00064-NE ) Honorable U. W. Clemon ) ) ) )

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The Plaintiffs and Defendant in this lawsuit, by and through their respective attorneys and Class Counsel, and subject to the Trial Court’s approval, enter into the following Settlement Agreement (“Agreement). I. PURPOSE:
Subject to the Trial Court’s approval, this Agreement is made and entered into by and between: the defendant, Steelcase Inc. (“Steelcase”); the Named Plaintiff, Linda Johnson; and the Class Members, for the complete and final settlement of all claims, differences and causes of actions which were raised, or could have been raised by them or any of them, in this Action. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an admission on the part of Steelcase as to the merit of any claim asserted in the lawsuit. This Agreement is being entered into for the purposes of complete and final settlement of all claims and to eliminate the cost and burden of further litigation of this Action. II DEFINITIONS:
For all purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meaning:
1. Administrative Costs shall mean the costs of Class Notice and the Claims Administrator’s fees and costs;
2. Agreement shall mean this Settlement Agreement and all of the exhibits attached hereto;

Page 5 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 6 of 34
3. Approved Claim shall mean a claim by a class member that strictly complies with the claim filing procedures set forth in the Agreement;
4. Claims Administrator shall mean Administar Services Group, Inc. 5. Class Counsel shall mean and include Robert F. Childs, Jr., Herman N. Johnson, Jr. and Henry F. Sherrod, III. 6. Class Members shall mean and include all black Americans who, between January 5, 2005, to the present, were/are employed by Steelcase Inc. in Production Technician (EEO-7) positions and who were qualified but not selected for vacancies in permanent positions of Quality Specialists and Quality Control Technicians (EEO-5BA), Zone Leaders and Temporary Supervisors (EEO-6BA), and Production Specialists/SPS Level 3 (EEO-6CA). Class members shall further include the heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents and assigns of any such person. 7. Expenses of the Validation Process include the reasonable and necessary charges of an expert for the design and validation of a new selection process for Quality Specialists and Quality Control Technicians (EEO-5BA), Zone Leaders and Temporary Supervisors (EEO-6BA) and Production Specialists/SPS Level 3 (EEO-6CA). 8. Final Approval of the Agreement shall mean the date the Trial Court’s Approval of the Agreement becomes final and the time for appeal has run. 9. Named Plaintiff shall mean Linda Johnson. 10. The Action shall mean the lawsuit styled Linda Johnson and the Class she Seeks to Represent vs. Steelcase Inc., pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, Civil Action No. 05:07-CV-00064-UWC-NE. 11. The Parties shall mean the plaintiffs and defendant in this Action. 12. The Trial Court shall mean the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division. 13. Steelcase shall mean and include Steelcase Inc. and all of its affiliates, parents, divisions, subsidiaries, successors, predecessors, units, stockholders, assigns, as well as its and their past or present agents, servants, employees, officers, directors, and attorneys. III. RECITALS: WHEREAS, on January 9, 2007, the lawsuit was filed; WHEREAS, on February 5, 2007, Steelcase filed its answer to the lawsuit; WHEREAS, on February 19, 2008, the First Amended Complaint was filed; WHEREAS, on March 4, 2008, Steelcase filed its answer to the First Amended Complaint; WHEREAS, on September 8th and 9th, 2008, a Class Certification Hearing was held in this case; WHEREAS, on October 6, 2008, a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) was certified by the Court; WHEREAS, Steelcase denies any liability or wrongdoing; WHEREAS, the Parties have conducted substantial discovery;
Page 6 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 7 of 34
WHEREAS, the Parties have negotiated the settlement of this matter at arms-length, in good faith and with the best interests of the Parties in mind based on a complete knowledge of all the factual and legal issues; and
WHEREAS, the parties have concluded that the continued litigation of the lawsuit will be expensive, time-consuming and burdensome with prospects for success being uncertain for all Parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, in view of these and other factors, the Parties have reached an Agreement as set out herein. IV NON-MONETARY RELIEF:
1. Steelcase agrees that neither it or its officers, managers or agents will (1) engage in any employment practice pertaining to the Named Plaintiff or the Class Members that violates the terms of this Agreement or (2) retaliate against any employee, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-3(a), for his/her participation and/or actions in this proceeding. Steelcase will take appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including discharge, against any of its employees who are determined by Steelcase to have engaged in any such actions. However, nothing in this agreement shall prevent Steelcase from exercising appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including discharge, against any of its employees for violation of its policies and procedures.
2. Steelcase shall continue to publish, post, and maintain, at the locations to which notices to employees are currently posted, the EEOC Notice of Rights poster and Steelcase’s policies against racial discrimination and harassment. These notices shall advise employees regarding the laws prohibiting racial discrimination and harassment and Steelcase’s policies against racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation;
3. Steelcase is committed to a diverse workforce and desires to have qualified AfricanAmerican persons in its workforce. Steelcase shall implement the following policies, practices, and procedures in a nondiscriminatory manner:
A.A Training Materials for Non-Exempt Employees Within ninety (90) days after the Final Approval of this Settlement Agreement, Steelcase will ensure that training materials are available for use by all EEO-7 employees interested in career advancement which will allow such employees to gain a broader understanding of various aspects of Steelcase’s operations and thereby enhance the ability of such employees to successfully perform Quality Specialist and Quality Control Technician (EEO-5BA), Zone Leader and Temporary Supervisor (EEO-6BA) and Production Specialist/SPS Level 3 (EEO-6CA) positions. These training materials shall be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. The form of these training materials is within the discretion of Steelcase. A.B Training of Human Resource Personnel
(1). Steelcase will continue to provide training programs for members of its Human Resources Department who have substantive responsibilities related to compliance with fair employment practice laws and/or the application of consistency and objectivity in the selection processes of Steelcase. Each training program will be re-administered periodically, as Steelcase deems necessary.. Periodic training may be in a more abbreviated format than the initial training.
Page 7 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 8 of 34
(2). Training for Human Resources Department Staff shall include, but not be limited to: (i) Federal equal employment opportunity laws; (ii) the application of equal employment opportunity laws to typical employment situations; (iii) compliance with this Agreement; (iv) the role and responsibility of the Human Resources Department and staff; and (vi) the handling of EEO complaints, including the prohibition against retaliation.
A.C Training of Managers and Supervisors (1). All managers and supervisors at Steelcase will continue to receive
training on objectivity in the selection process at Steelcase and equal employment opportunity to include the following topics (i) the non-discrimination principles necessary to ensure compliance with this Agreement; (ii) equal employment opportunity; (iii) diversity; (iv) federal, state and Steelcase’s prohibitions of work place discrimination, including racial harassment and retaliation; and (v) any other topics that may encourage equal treatment in training, promotions, qualifying and retaining all employees. Such training may be delivered in live “discussion” format, video format, web-based or electronic format, written materials, or any combination of these or other formats.
(2). At Steelcase’s discretion, the training described in Paragraph C.(1) may be held in conjunction with other Steelcase business and may be organized in such fashion as Steelcase deems appropriate.
Page 8 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 9 of 34

A.D Training of New Employees

Steelcase will continue to include in its orientation sessions for new employees

training with respect to valuing diversity in the workplace and the fostering of a work

environment free from unlawful racial discrimination or harassment.

A.E Posting of All Positions

(1). Steelcase currently posts some, but not all, positions at its Athens’

Plant. In an effort to increase the opportunities for African-Americans to obtain Quality

Specialist and Quality Control Technician (EEO-5BA), Zone Leader and Temporary Supervisor

(EEO-6BA) and Production Specialist/SPS Level 3 (EEO-6CA) positions, Steelcase agrees that

it will commence posting all such positions at its Athens plant;

(2).

Steelcase will continue to apprize interested employees of

available Quality Specialist and Quality Control Technician (EEO-5BA), Zone Leader and

Temporary Supervisor (EEO-6BA) and SPS Level 3 (EEO-6CA) positions through the use of

Case TV or other comparable methods of electronic communication. Employees will be

responsible for checking the applicable information source to learn of existing vacancies;

(3). Steelcase will post the minimum job requirements for each of its

posted jobs;

(4). Steelcase agrees to audit its job posting process to ensure that all job

postings are handled consistently with Company policy and this Agreement;

Page 9 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 10 of 34
(5). Steelcase will retain for the term of this Agreement any documentation created pursuant to its posting process which shows why each employee who bid for a posted job was or was not selected, including but not limited to, the reasons why each candidate did or did not meet the requirements for the job. None of the foregoing shall limit Steelcase’s right to seek outside as well as internal candidates for any position.
A.F Counseling Process Within ninety (90) days following Final Approval of the Agreement, Steelcase shall establish, and thereafter maintain during the term of the Agreement, a counseling process, administered by its Human Resources Department, so that any employee may call and obtain career development advice aimed at assisting them in progressing to all positions, including management and supervisory positions. A.G Paper and Pencil Tests. During the term of this Agreement, Steelcase will not use any paper and pencil test in making selection decisions for Quality Specialist and Quality Control Technician (EEO5BA), Zone Leader and Temporary Supervisor (EEO-6BA) and Production Specialist/SPS Level 3 (EEO-6CA) positions which has an adverse impact against African-American employees, unless such test is validated in accordance with the Uniform Guidelines On Employee Selection Procedures. A.H Structured Interview Process Steelcase will utilize a structured interview process for all selections at its Athens’ Plant during the term of the Settlement Agreement. Within ninety (90) days after Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Steelcase will provide Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel with a statement from a qualified Industrial/Organizational Psychologist that its structured interview process meets professionally accepted standards which are not inconsistent with governing law or guidelines (it being understood by the Parties that this language does not create an obligation on the part of Steelcase to comply with the Uniform Guidelines’ standards or procedures as to the structured interview process). I. New Selection Process Steelcase shall, within ninety (90) days after the Final Approval of the Agreement, implement a new selection process at its Athens Facility for Quality Specialist and Quality Control Technician (EEO-5BA), Zone Leader and Temporary Supervisor (EEO-6BA) and Production Specialist/SPS Level 3 (EEO-6CA) positions which will be properly validated in accordance with market standards and the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Steelcase shall employ qualified experts to implement this new selection process and to provide a report to Class Counsel regarding this new selection procedure. Any modification of this new selection process shall also be validated or shall not alter or amend the process as to destroy validation. The costs of implementing this new selection process shall be borne by Steelcase. It is estimated that the development, implementation, and monitoring of this new selection process will have a value to the Class in excess of $200,000.
V. ADMINISTRATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Page 10 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 11 of 34
1. Within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, Steelcase will provide to the Claims Administrator an electronic list, in a reasonable format requested by the Claims Administrator, of the name and address of each Class Member in this case as defined in Article II.6. This list will be verified under oath by Steelcase as being a true and correct list of the names and last-known address of all such Class Members. In providing this information, Steelcase shall have no responsibility for determining whether a Class Members’ right, if any, to proceeds from this settlement have passed to the Class Members’ bankruptcy estate, or to any other receiver, successor or assigns. The Claims Administrator will then mail, by first-class mail, the Notice of Proposed Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the “Notice”) (Exhibit “3” attached) and a copy of the Settlement Agreement to each Class Member for whom deliverable addresses have been obtained pursuant to this paragraph. 1 The Notice and Agreement shall be mailed by the Claims Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the date set by the Court for the Fairness Hearing. To receive any monetary relief under this Agreement, Class Members must complete, sign and submit a Claim Form (Exhibit “D” attached hereto). Said Claim Form must be sent via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the Claims Administrator and postmarked on or before __________, 2008 [fourteen days prior to the Fairness Hearing]. The failure of a Class Member to fill out all sections of the Claim Form and to timely submit this Claim Form as set forth above will result in the loss of all monetary relief due to said Class Member under this Agreement, unless the Class Member demonstrates that he/she was prevented from completely filing out or timely filing the Claim Form by valid circumstances beyond his/her control. The Claim Form should be mailed to:
Claims Administrator Administar Services Group, Inc. P. O. Box 56380 Jacksonville, Florida 32241-6380
2. It is the responsibility of each Class Member to ensure that their Claim Form is
completely filled out and timely postmarked. By submitting a Claim Form, the Class Member
thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the Court for the purposes of this Action. The Claims
Administrator shall review any timely delivered Claim Form to ensure it is properly completed,
1
If a Notice to a Class Member is returned undeliverable, the Claims Administrator shall attempt to trace the individual by using the Class Member’s Social Security number (if available) via on-line/internet search providers. Notice shall then be mailed to the most likely address obtained through such tracing. If a new address cannot be found, the name and last known address of such Class Member shall be provided to Class Counsel and counsel for Steelcase, as well as to the Court at the Fairness Hearing.
Page 11 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 12 of 34
signed and attested to. Any Claim Form that is submitted in an untimely fashion or does not satisfy the above criteria may be deemed to be an unapproved claim at the sole and absolute discretion of the Claims Administrator.
3. Any Class Member may object to the settlement embodied in this Agreement. Any such objection must be postmarked on or before January 14, 2009, and sent via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the Claims Administrator at the following address:
Claims Administrator Administar Services Group, Inc. P. O. Box 56380 Jacksonville, Florida 32241-6380 4. It is the responsibility of each Class Member desiring to object to this Agreement to ensure that their written objection is timely postmarked and sent to the Claims Administrator. All claims of Class Members will be deemed to be conclusively resolved through the procedures and remedies set forth in this Agreement and such persons will be forever barred from pursuing any such claims against Steelcase to the date of the Final Approval of the Agreement. Any Class Member who desires to appear at the Fairness Hearing to assert any objection to the Agreement must sign and deliver a Notice of Intent to Appear at the Fairness Hearing to the Settlement Administrator at the above-referenced address by January 14,, 2009. 5. The Claims Administrator shall receive Claim Forms, written objections, notices of intent to appear and other correspondence from Class Members and shall provide copies of such writings to Class Counsel and counsel for Steelcase on a regular and timely basis, including notifying Class Counsel and counsel for Steelcase immediately of written objections to the settlement.
Page 12 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 13 of 34
6. The Class Administrator shall have the sole responsibility to evaluate each claim form submitted and determine whether a timely and valid claim has been submitted. The level of monetary recovery to be received by Class Members shall be within the sole discretion of Class Counsel, in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ Expert, and Article VI of this Agreement.
7. The Claims Administrator shall provide to Class Counsel and counsel for Steelcase an affidavit which sets forth all steps performed by it regarding notification to Class Members, including expenses incurred, and shall provide supporting documentation, evidence and/or testimony relating thereto to Class Counsel and counsel for Steelcase no later than seven (7) days prior to the date scheduled for the Fairness Hearing.
8. On or before January 19, 2009, the Claims Administrator shall: A. notify Steelcase counsel and Class Counsel in writing of the names
of any Class Members who have objected to the Agreement; B. file with the Court a sworn statement listing all persons who have
objected to the Agreement; C. provide to Steelcase’s counsel and Class Counsel copies of all
objections received by it. The originals of all objections shall be retained by the Claims Administrator unless and until such originals are delivered to the Court or to Class Counsel at the conclusion of these proceedings;
D. conventionally file (not e-file) with the Court, copies of all objections and Notices of Intent to Appear at the Fairness Hearing (with the envelope in which such objections and Notices were delivered) received by the Claims Administrator. The original
Page 13 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 14 of 34

of all objections shall be retained by the Claims Administrator unless and until such originals are

delivered to the Court or to Class Counsel at the conclusion of these proceedings;

E. file with the Court, and provide copies to Steelcase's counsel and

Class Counsel, a statement regarding all Claim Forms submitted identifying which claims satisfy

the criteria for Approved Claims; and

F. supply Steelcase and Class Counsel with a summary of all

payments to be made for Approved Claims, along with appropriate supporting documentation.

Steelcase shall make payment of all Approved Claims, less applicable payroll and other taxes

within thirty (30) days after Final Approval of this Agreement.

9. Class Counsel and counsel for Steelcase shall attempt to resolve any disputes as

to whether a claim is properly approved. If they are unable to do so, then any such disputes shall

be submitted to the Court for resolution.

10.

The costs and expenses of the Claims Administrator shall be paid by Class

Counsel.

VI. CLASS FUND

1. Steelcase agrees to pay up to $201,700.00, less taxes and withholdings, for all

Approved Claims, (hereinafter “Class Fund”). Steelcase will make said payment within thirty

(30) days after the Final Approval of the Agreement.

2. All distributions from the Class Fund to Class Members shall be allocated as wages.

Steelcase will perform the administrative task of preparing the necessary tax forms with respect

Page 14 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 15 of 34
to withholding and employment taxes for all appropriate government entities and shall mail such checks to the class members in compliance with Article V.8.F. above.
3. As a condition precedent to the receipt of any money under the provisions of this Agreement, Class Members must execute a Claim Form, as set forth in Exhibit “1” attached hereto. Further, the Class Member must strictly comply with the claims filing procedures (including time deadlines) set forth in Paragraph V.1.
4. The Class Fund shall be distributed as follows: A. Each class member is eligible to receive a share of the Class Fund. Eligibility
for and the amount of any payment from the Class Fund to Class Members who timely submit a Claim Form will be determined by Class Counsel, with the aide of Plaintiffs’ Expert. Such determination shall be in the sole and final discretion of Class Counsel based upon eligibility criteria and the application of factors to include, among others, whether the individual was employed on a permanent basis, whether the individual satisfied the minimum qualifications of the position sought, which positions were sought, when the positions were sought, whether the positions were posted for bid, whether the Class Member was discouraged from seeking positions, length of employment with Steelcase, and positions held at Steelcase. Only those Class Members who are determined by Class Counsel to satisfy the eligibility criteria described above will be entitled to monetary relief from the Class Fund.
5. The Named Plaintiff is not entitled to receive any payment from the Class Fund. It shall be the sole responsibility of each Class Member who seeks a monetary payment in this case to advise the Claims Administrator promptly of any change of address. A Class Member’s
Page 15 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 16 of 34 failure to keep the Claims Administrator apprized of her/her current address may result in her request for monetary relief being denied.
6. In the event that there is any monetary sum that is not claimed from the Class Fund, Class Counsel will contribute any such remaining monetary sum to Workplace Fairness. VII. NAMED PLAINTIFF:
1. Steelcase will pay Linda Johnson the following sums within thirty (30) days after Final Approval:
A. Five Thousand and No/100 ($5,000.00) Dollars for time spent preparing for and giving her deposition, for each time spent in reviewing the records of Steelcase, and for time spent meeting with and talking to Class Counsel to help in the prosecution of the class claims;
Page 16 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 17 of 34
B. Five Thousand and No/100 ($5,000.00) Dollars for the emotional distress suffered in assuming the risks and notoriety related to being the named plaintiff in this class action litigation, including the potential liability for Steelcase’s taxable legal costs had Steelcase litigated this action to a conclusion in its favor; and
C. Eighty Thousand and No/100 ($80,000.00) Dollars for her individual claims of racial discrimination.
2. Payment will be by check made payable to the order of Linda Johnson and delivered in care of Class Counsel. Linda Johnson must deliver to Steelcase in care of its counsel a completed W-9 form and a release in the form as attached hereto as Exhibit 4 before payment will be made. Steelcase will issue a Form 1099 to Linda Johnson covering said payment.
3. Steelcase will send the $90,000 to be paid to Linda Johnson to Class Counsel within thirty (30) days after Final Approval of the Agreement.
4. Within thirty (30) days after Final Approval of this Agreement, Linda Johnson will be promoted to Cycle Counter on the First Shift. VIII. CLASS COUNSEL FEES.
1. Within thirty (30) days of the Final Approval of this Agreement, Steelcase shall pay Class Counsel the sum of $400,800 for its attorney’s fees and costs in this Action. The $400,800.00 awarded to Class Counsel includes $68,390.00 in expert costs utilized to evaluate Steelcase’s former selection process. Steelcase will support the awarding of Class Counsel’s fees and expenses by the Court. Such payment will be made by two checks payable to the order of Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC. and Henry F. Sherrod, III, P.C. in the amount of
Page 17 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 18 of 34
$264,100.00 and $136,700.00, respectively, and delivered to Class Counsel. Class Counsel must provide an appropriately completed W-9 form before payment will be made. Steelcase will issue a Form 1099 to Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC. and Henry F. Sherrod, III, P.C.
2. Within ten (10) business days after the entry of an Order preliminarily approving the Agreement, the $400,800.00 to be paid to Class Counsel will be placed into an interest-bearing trust account at Servis First Bank, or other mutually agreeable financial institution as referenced in Article VI (1) above. Any interest earned on this money will be go to Class Counsel for the payment of Administrative Costs. IX. FINAL JUSTMENT AND RELEASE
Upon Final Approval of this Agreement, the following should occur: (a) a Final Judgment and Order shall be entered dismissing this Lawsuit on the merits with prejudice against the named plaintiff, permanently barring and enjoining her from asserting or litigating any and all claims, rights, actions, suits, causes of action, demands, matters and issues of every nature and description (whether class, individual, derivative or otherwise in nature), known or unknown, which have been asserted in the Action, which could have been asserted in the Action, or which arise out of or are in any way related to the subject matter of the Action; (b) Final Judgment and Order shall be entered on the settlement dismissing the Lawsuit on the merits with prejudice against all Class Members, permanently barring and enjoining them from asserting or litigating any and all claims that were asserted in or could have been asserted in the Action; (c) the named Plaintiff will release any and all claims against Steelcase which were asserted in the Action, which could have been asserted in the Action, or which are in any way related to the
Page 18 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 19 of 34
subject matter of the Action; and (d) all Class Members will release any and all claims against Steelcase which were asserted in or could have been asserted in the Action. X. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
1. Within fourteen (14) business days after the execution of this Agreement, the parties shall submit this Agreement to the Court, together with a Joint Motion requesting that the Court enter an order (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) granting preliminary approval of the Agreement. The Preliminary Approval Order should:
A. Incorporate the terms of this Court’s Class Certification Order indicating that this Action may proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) Fed. R. Civ. P. with a settlement class as defined in Article II.6.of this Agreement;
B find that the Named Plaintiff, as class representative, and Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC, and Henry F. Sherrod, III, P. C., as Class Counsel, have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interest of the Class Members;
C find on a preliminary basis that the settlement set forth in this Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class Members;
D stay all proceedings in this action, except as may be necessary to implement this Agreement;
E provide for a Fairness Hearing on a date no earlier than forty-five (45) days from the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order to determine the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the settlement set forth in this Agreement;
Page 19 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 20 of 34
F find that the method of identifying Class Members, as well as the timing, form, content, and method of disseminating of the proposed Notice to the Class Members, as provided for herein, satisfies the requirements of due process and Rule 23 Fed. R. Civ. P.;
G set a deadline, not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date for the Fairness Hearing, for the submission of any objections to this settlement and the submission of any Notices of Intent to Appear at the Fairness Hearing as provided in Article V; and
H provide that in the event the proposed settlement set forth in this Agreement is not approved by the Court, or for any reason does not become final, then this Agreement shall become null and void, shall be of no further force and effect, and shall not be used or referred to for any purposes whatsoever in this Action, or in any other case or controversy; and that in such event, this Agreement and all negotiations and proceedings related thereto shall be deemed to be without prejudice to the rights of any and all Parties hereto, who shall be restored to their respective litigation positions as of the date immediately preceding this Agreement.
2. A proposed Preliminary Approval Order, which the parties acknowledge satisfy the requirements of Article X, is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 6. In the event the Court does not enter the Preliminary Approval Order described herein, or decides to do so only with modifications, then this entire Agreement shall become null and void, unless the parties hereto agree in writing, within seven (7) days of the Court’s modifications, to proceed with the Agreement, as modified, and so notify the Court. XI. FAIRNESS HEARING:
Page 20 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 21 of 34
1. At the hearing on the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the settlement set forth herein, the parties shall request the Court to enter an order (the “Final Order and Judgment”) granting final approval of this Agreement, and enter a judgment thereon dismissing with prejudice this action against Steelcase. In order to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement, the Final Order and Judgment must include provisions which:
A. Certify that this action was properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) Fed. R. Civ. P., with a class as defined in Article II.6. of this Agreement;
B. find that the named plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Class Members;
C. find that the method of identifying Class Members, as well as the timing, form, content, and method of disseminating the proposed Notice to the Class Members, satisfies the requirements of both Rule 23 Fed. R. Civ. P., and due process and that the Court has jurisdiction over the class;
D. find that this Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class Members and conclude that this Agreement should be approved;
E. order that the named plaintiff, individually and as a class representative, as well as the Class Members, have released Steelcase in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Article IX of this Agreement;
F. dismiss on the merits and with prejudice all claims in this action against Steelcase and permanently enjoin Named Plaintiff and Class Members from bringing or prosecuting any claim, counter-claim or action that is released in Article IX of this Agreement;
Page 21 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 22 of 34
G. approve the award of attorneys’ fees, as well as all reasonable and necessary costs and litigation expenses, to Class Counsel in the amount of $400,800.00 as set forth in Article VIII;
H. approve the payments set forth in Article VII of this Agreement; I. approve the payment of Approved Claims, Expenses of the Validation Process and Administrative Costs as set forth in Articles V and VI; and J. retain jurisdiction over any and all matters and issues relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of this Agreement and Final Order and Judgment; 2. An agreed form of the Final Judgment Order approving the class action settlement is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. 3. At or before the Fairness Hearing, Named Plaintiff, Class Counsel, and Steelcase shall present sufficient evidence to support the entry of the Order set forth in Exhibit 7. 4. Named Plaintiff and Class Counsel shall also present such evidence as they deem appropriate or as required by the Court to support any award of attorneys’ fees and costs and any payments set forth herein. 5. In the event that the Court does not enter a Final Judgment Order substantially in the form proposed approving the settlement described herein, or decides to do so only with material modifications, then this entire Agreement shall become null and void, unless the parties hereto agree in writing, within seven (7) days of the Court’s modifications to proceed with this Agreement, as modified, and so notify the Court.
Page 22 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 23 of 34
XII. DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS: 1. Nothing in this Agreement shall change or modify the obligations, duties and
responsibilities imposed upon any person by the Trial Court’s Protective Order entered in the Action. XIII. AGREEMENT NOT AN ADMISSION:
This Agreement, whether or not consummated, and any proceedings taken hereunder are not and shall not in any event be construed as or deemed to be an admission or concession by the Parties, or any of them, of the truth of any fact alleged or the validity of any claim or defense asserted in the Lawsuit or of the liability of Steelcase; nor are they a concession or presumption of any wrongdoing on the part of Steelcase. Steelcase has denied and continues to deny all of plaintiffs' allegations of fault or liability and the averments of plaintiffs and any Class Members suffering any damages, monetary or otherwise, by reason of the alleged wrongdoing. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission or concession that Steelcase has a history of discriminating against African-Americans in employment. XIV. MONITORING
1. On September 1, 2009, or such later date as the parties shall agree, Steelcase shall provide the following report to Class Counsel:
A. Selections: All selections into Quality Specialist and Quality Control Technician (EEO-5BA), Zone Leader and Temporary Supervisor (EEO-6BA), and Production Specialist (EEO-6CA) positions during the preceding six month period, including the titles of the positions filled, the locations of the filled positions, the dates the positions were filled, and the
Page 23 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 24 of 34
name, race, and prior employment history at Steelcase for each individual awarded each such position. Steelcase shall identify every employee by name, race, prior positions held at Steelcase and length of employment at Steelcase, who received, and any employee who was denied, any such position along with a written statement of all reasons why the employee was selected and the other employees were not selected.
B. Demotions: The names and races of all employees demoted from a Quality Specialist and Quality Control Technician (EEO-5BA), Zone Leader and Temporary Supervisor (EEO-6BA), or Production Specialist/SPS Level 3 (EEO-6CA) position during the preceding six month period, including the title and location of the position into which the demoted employee was placed, and all reasons for the demotion.
C. Discharges: The names and races of all employees discharged from a Quality Specialist and Quality Control Technician (EEO-5BA), Zone Leader and Temporary Supervisor (EEO-6BA), and Production Specialist/SPS Level 3 (EEO-6CA) position during the preceding six month period, including the title and location of the position from which the employee was discharged and all reasons for the discharge.
2. Steelcase shall retain the records from which the reports in this Article are derived for at least ninety (90) days after delivering such report. During the period of their retention, such records will be made available to the Class Counsel upon reasonable request for the inspection of same.
3. Class Counsel, or his designee, shall be provided access to all information reasonably necessary for them to monitor compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
Page 24 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 25 of 34
XV. GENERAL TERMS: 1. If at any time, the Trial Court declines or refuses to preliminarily or finally
approve the Agreement, then the Agreement is null and void. 2. If the Trial Court declines or refuses to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice, with
each party to bear its own costs, then the Agreement is null and void. 3. If the Trial Court enters an Order dismissing with prejudice the Lawsuit on the
terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, and said Order is reversed or modified on appeal, then the Agreement is null and void.
4. This Agreement is deemed to be made and executed in the State of Alabama, shall be deemed to be under seal, and shall be deemed to be a contract under the laws of the State of Alabama. This Agreement, for all purposes, including, but not limited to its validity, construction and enforceability, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Alabama and the rights of the Parties hereunder shall be governed in all respect by said laws.
5. The waiver by any party to this Agreement of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by any of the Parties to this Agreement.
6. This Agreement may be altered or amended before Court approval only by a subsequent written instrument signed collectively by Class Counsel and counsel for Steelcase. This agreement may be altered or amended after Court approval only by a subsequent written instrument signed collectively by Class Counsel and counsel for Steelcase and approved by the Court.
Page 25 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 26 of 34
7. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the Parties hereto, their heirs, successors, and assigns.
8. The Parties to this Agreement declare and represent that no threat and no promise, inducement, or agreement not herein set forth has been made to any of them.
9. The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement and its dissemination and publication will not preclude Steelcase from enforcing its disciplinary policy regarding employee performance and productivity. XVI RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
This Settlement Agreement will be effective and binding on the Parties for a period of six (6) months or until the new selection process covered in section IV.I is created and implemented, whichever is longer, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case to assure that the terms and/or requirements of this Agreement are properly implemented and maintained. At the conclusion of this period, this Settlement Agreement shall automatically terminate without further proceedings.
EXECUTED THIS 28th DAY OF JANUARY, 2009.
Herman N. Johnson, Jr. Robert F. Childs Herman N. Johnson, Jr. WIGGINS, CHILDS QUINN PANTAZIS, P.C. The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203
Page 26 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 27 of 34
Henry F. Sherrod, III HENRY F. SHERROD III P. C. 119 South Court Street P. O. Box 606 Florence, Alabama 35631-0606 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Linda Johnson, Named Plaintiff and the class she represents.
Roslyn Crews Kenneth L. Thomas Roslyn Crews African Parchman THOMAS, MEANS, GILLIS & SEAY, P. C. 505 20th Street, North Suite 400 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Attorneys for Defendant, Steelcase Inc.
Page 27 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 28 of 34
Attachment “B” NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: All black Americans who, between January 5, 2005, to the present were/are employed by Steelcase Incorporated in Production Technician (EEO-7) positions and who were qualified but not selected for vacancies in permanent positions of Quality Specialists and Quality Control Technicians (EEO5BA), Zone Leaders and Temporary Supervisors (EEO-6BA) and Production Specialists (EEO-6CA). A settlement has been proposed in the case of Linda Johnson and the Class She Seeks to Represent v. Steelcase Incorporated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division; Case No. 05:07-CV-00064-UWC-NE before the Honorable U. W. Clemon relating to Steelcase’s selection practices at its Plant in Athens, Alabama for the Quality Specialists and Quality Control Technicians (EEO-5BA), Zone Leaders and Temporary Supervisors (EEO-6BA) and Production Specialists (EEO-6CA) positions. Steelcase denies that its selection practices violate the law in any way. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is enclosed for your review regarding the terms of the settlement. You are a class member in this case whose rights will be affected by the Settlement and who may be entitled to share in the Settlement. To receive money
Page 28 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 29 of 34
from the Settlement, you must submit a valid claim form. You do not need to appear in Court. A claim form is enclosed. You must fill out the claim form completely and truthfully, swear under penalty of perjury that the information contained in your claim form is true, and mail the claim form by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, postmarked on or before January 14, 2009, to the Claims Administrator: Administar Services Group, Inc., P.O. Box 36380, Jacksonville, Florida 322416380.
A public hearing concerning whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, before Judge Clemon at the Federal Courthouse, 400 Wells Street, Decatur, Alabama 35601. You may object in writing to the settlement by mailing via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, such objection to the Claims Administrator. This objection must be postmarked on or before January 14, 2009. You also have a right to be heard at the hearing, in person or through a lawyer that you hire and pay. To be heard, you must deliver written notice of your intent to appear and object to the settlement to the Claims Administrator. This notice of intent to appear must be postmarked on or before January 14, 2009. If you do not object to the Settlement, you do not need to come to the Fairness Hearing. You also have the right to hire
Page 29 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 30 of 34 (and pay for) your own lawyer to represent you in connection with this Settlement or with this lawsuit in general.
As a Class Member, you will be bound by the Settlement and Final Judgment entered in this case.
If you need more information about the Lawsuit, you may write to Class Counsel: Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC, The Kress Building, 301 19th Street North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203 or Henry F. Sherrod, III, 119 Smith Court Street, P. O. Box 606, Florence, Alabama 35631.
Page 30 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 31 of 34

Attachment “C”
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

LINDA JOHNSON, on behalf of

)

herself and others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

STEELCASE, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action Number 5:07-cv-0064-UWC

CLAIM FORM

STATE of ___________________ COUNTY of_________________

1. My name is ____________________________________. (Please print)

2. My current address is : __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________

3. My Social Security Number is __________________________. (Your Social Security Number will only be used in connection with reporting any payments to applicable governmental tax authorities).

4. I have been employed at Steelcase, Inc. during the following time(s):

_________________________________ _________________________________

Page 31 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 32 of 34

_________________________________

5. From January 5, 2005 to the present, I have applied for the following jobs:

o Quality Specialist

o Once o More than once

o Quality Control Technician o Once o More than once

o Zone Leader

o Once o More than once

o Temporary Supervisor o Once o More than once

o Production Specialist o Once o More than once

6. a. Have you ever applied for the position of Quality Specialist?

_________ Yes __________ No

b. If your answer is “no,” explain why you did not apply. ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
_ 7. a. Have you ever applied for the position of Quality Control Technician?

_________ Yes __________ No

b. If your answer is “no,” explain why you did not apply. ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________

8. Have you ever applied for the position of Zone Leader?

Page 32 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 33 of 34
_________ Yes __________ No
b. If your answer is “no,” explain why you did not apply. ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
9. a. Have you ever applied for a position as Temporary Supervisor?
_________ Yes __________ No
b. If your answer is “no,” explain why you did not apply. ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
10. a. Have you ever applied for the position of Production Specialist?
_________ Yes __________ No
b. If your answer is “no,” explain why you did not apply. ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Dated this __________ day of ___________________, 200____.
______________________________ Signature
Page 33 of 34

Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 67 Filed 12/10/08 Page 34 of 34 ______________________________ Your Printed Name
In order to be considered for payment, your Claim Form must be mailed with first class postage to the Claims Administrator at Administar Services Group, Inc., Post Office Box 56380, Jacksonville, Florida 32241-6380; and it must be postmarked not later than January 14, 2009.
Page 34 of 34

 
 Case 5:07-cv-00064-UWC Document 69 Filed 01/28/09 Page 1 of 1

FILED
2009 Jan-28 PM 03:01 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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

LINDA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself )

and others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

STEELCASE, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action Number 5:07-cv-00064-UWC

DISMISSAL ORDER

Based upon the evidence presented at the Class Action Fairness

Hearing held on January 28, 2009, the Court finds that the settlement in this

action is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Each party is hereby enjoined to comply with the terms of the

settlement agreement.

This action is hereby DISMISSED.

Done this 28th day of January, 2009.

______________________________ U.W. Clemon
United States District Judge

 
 Case: 5:07-cv-64 As of: 06/03/2010 08:58 PM CDT 1 of 6
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Northeastern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:07−cv−00064−UWC

CLOSED

Johnson v. Steelcase, Inc. Assigned to: Judge U W Clemon Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff Linda Johnson

Date Filed: 01/09/2007 Date Terminated: 01/28/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Henry F Sherrod , III HENRY F SHERROD III PC PO Box 606 Florence, AL 35631−0606 256−764−4141 Fax: 877−684−0802 Email: hsherrod@hiwaay.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Herman N Johnson , Jr CUMBERLAND LAW SCHOOL 812 Lake Colony Circle Birmingham, AL 35242 205−726−2400 Email: rusty.johnson284@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert F Childs , Jr WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN &PANTAZIS 301 19th Street, North Birmingham, AL 35203−3204 205−328−0640 Email: RFC@wcqp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Steelcase, Inc.

represented by Afrika C Parchman THOMAS MEANS GILLIS &SEAY PC Financial Center, Suite 400 505 North 20th Street PO Box 11365 Birmingham, AL 35202−1365 205−328−7915 Fax: 205−214−6160 Email: acparchman@tmgslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frederic A Bolling THOMAS MEANS GILLIS &SEAY PC Financial Center, Suite 400 505 North 20th Street PO Box 11365 Birmingham, AL 35202−1365 205−328−7915 Fax: 205−214−6160 Email: fabolling@tmgpc.com

Case: 5:07-cv-64 As of: 06/03/2010 08:58 PM CDT 2 of 6
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth L Thomas THOMAS MEANS GILLIS &SEAY, PC 3121 Zelda Court (36106) PO Drawer 5058 Montgomery, AL 36103−5058 1−334−270−1033 Fax: 334−260−9396 Email: klthomas@tmgslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roslyn Crews THOMAS MEANS GILLIS &SEAY PC Financial Center, Suite 400 505 North 20th Street PO Box 11365 Birmingham, AL 35202−1365 205−328−7915 Fax: 205−214−6160 Email: rcrews@tmgslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/09/2007
01/09/2007 01/12/2007 01/18/2007 02/05/2007 02/06/2007
04/10/2007 04/11/2007
11/20/2007 11/26/2007
01/24/2008 01/24/2008 01/24/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with Exhibits 1 and 2 attached against defendant Steelcase, Inc. (Filing Fee $350.00 Paid) , filed by plaintiff Linda Johnson. (Attachments: #(1) Civil Cover Sheet)(SRJ, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
2 Request for Service by Certified Mail filed by plaintiff Linda Johnson. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
Summons Issued by Certified Mail as to defendant Steelcase, Inc., (SRJ, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
SUMMONS Returned Executed upon dft Steelcase, Inc., served on 1/16/2007, answer due 2/5/2007. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by Steelcase, Inc..(Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
4 UNIFORM INITIAL ORDER governing all further proceedings − with appendices attached. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on February 6, 2007. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
5 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
6 SCHEDULING ORDER the dates AGREED to by the parties in their Planning Meeting are hereby ADOPTED; Except the following deadlines, Discovery due by 11/23/2007 and Dispositive Motions due by 12/21/2007.. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on April 11, 2007. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
7 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time by Linda Johnson. (Sherrod, Henry) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
8 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to complete discovery. Discovery due by FEBRUARY 21, 2008. Dispositive motions by MARCH 20, 2008. [THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY − NO ATTACHED ORDER]. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 11/26/07. (DJS, ) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert F Childs, Jr on behalf of Linda Johnson (Childs, Robert) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Herman N Johnson, Jr on behalf of Linda Johnson (Johnson, Herman) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
11 MOTION for Leave to File first amended complaint by Linda Johnson. (Attachments: # 1)(Sherrod, Henry) (Entered: 01/24/2008)

Case: 5:07-cv-64 As of: 06/03/2010 08:58 PM CDT 3 of 6

02/04/2008 02/19/2008
02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/28/2008 02/28/2008 02/29/2008
03/04/2008 04/17/2008 04/22/2008 06/09/2008
06/10/2008
06/25/2008
07/21/2008
07/28/2008 07/31/2008 08/01/2008 08/20/2008

12 RESPONSE in Opposition re 11 MOTION for Leave to File first amended complaint filed by Steelcase, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
13 ORDER that plaintiff's 11 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is hereby GRANTED; Plaintiff SHALL FILE an Amended Complaint within Three (3) days. A Scheduling Conference will be held on Thursday, February 28, 2008 @ 2:30 pm at US Federal Courthouse in Birmingham, AL. Discovery is STAYED until Amended Scheduling Order is entered. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on February 19, 2008. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
Scheduling Conference SET for 2/28/2008 02:30 PM before Judge U W Clemon. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
14 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Linda Johnson.(Sherrod, Henry) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge U W Clemon: Scheduling Conference held on 2/28/2008. (KLL, ) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
15 SCHEDULING ORDER:. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 02/28/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
16 ORDER Correcting Feb 28, 2008, Scheduling Order: The Class Certification Hearing is hereby scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Monday July 7, 2008, at the Decatur Courthouse.[THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY − NO ATTACHED ORDER]. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 2/29/08. (DJS, ) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
17 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Steelcase, Inc..(Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
18 MOTION for Protective Order by Steelcase, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
19 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Def.'s Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 4/22/08. (DJS, ) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
20 ORDER − Setting conference call for Tuesday June 10, 2008, at 2:00 pm on parties request for extension of discovery deadlines. [THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY − NO ATTACHED ORDER]. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 6/9/08. (DJS, ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
21 ORDER − extending discovery deadlines for thirty days. The Court will issue an order re−setting the class certification hearing and pre−trial conference. [THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY − NO ATTACHED ORDER]. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 6/10/08. (DJS, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
22 ORDER Re−Setting CLASS CERTIFICATION Hearing for Monday September 8, 2008 @ 10:30 a.m., in Huntsville. [THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY − NO ATTACHED ORDER]. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 6/25/08. (DJS, ) . (Entered: 06/25/2008)
23 ORDER SETTING PRE−TRIAL CONFERENCE. Plaintiff's counsel SHALL SUBMIT a proposed pre−trial order AS SET OUT in this Order. Pretrial Conference SET for 9/8/2008 @ 1:00 PM before Judge U W Clemon the Federal Courthouse, Huntsville, AL.. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on July 21, 2008. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
24 MOTION for Leave to File by Linda Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 second amended complaint, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Sherrod, Henry) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
25 ORDER denying 24 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 07/31/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth L Thomas on behalf of Steelcase, Inc. (Thomas, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
27 NOTICE OF LOCATION CHANGE OF HEARINGS: The class certification hearing and pretrial conference, currently scheduled for September 8, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., respectively, will be held in Decatur, Alabama before

Case: 5:07-cv-64 As of: 06/03/2010 08:58 PM CDT 4 of 6

08/28/2008
09/05/2008 09/05/2008 09/08/2008
09/09/2008 09/09/2008
09/09/2008 09/09/2008 09/10/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/26/2008 10/02/2008
10/06/2008
10/06/2008 10/06/2008 10/06/2008 10/06/2008

Judge U.W. Clemon. TEXT ENTRY ONLY. (KLL, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
28 NOTICE OF LOCATION CHANGE OF HEARINGS: The class certification hearing and pretrial conference, currently scheduled for September 8, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., respectively, will be held in Birmingham, Alabama before Judge U. W. Clemon. [THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY − NO ATTACHED ORDER]. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 8/28/08. (DJS, ) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Afrika C Parchman on behalf of Steelcase, Inc. (Parchman, Afrika) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
30 NOTICE by Steelcase, Inc. Notice of Appearance for Frederic Bolling (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge U W Clemon: Class Certification Hearing held on 9/8/2008. Testimony of plaintiff; plaintiff rests. Court in recess until 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 9, 2008. (Court Reporter Chanetta Sinkfield.) (KLL, ) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
31 MOTION to Dismiss and in Opposition to Class Certification by Steelcase, Inc.. (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge U W Clemon: Class Certification Hearing held on 9/9/2008. Testimony by dft; dft rests. Oral argument by parties. The Court will enter a separate order. (Court Reporter Chanetta Sinkfield.) (KLL, ) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge U W Clemon: Final Pretrial Conference held on 9/9/2008. (KLL, ) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
32 PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 09/09/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
33 Evidentiary Material re: 31 MOTION to Dismiss and in Opposition to Class Certification. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
Set Hearings: Jury Trial set for 11/10/2008 at 09:00 AM in Decatur, Alabama before Judge U W Clemon. (KLL, ) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
34 MOTION to Modify Pretrial Order by Steelcase, Inc.. (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
35 DAMAGE list of Linda Johnson filed.. (Johnson, Herman) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
36 MOTION to Compel Defendant To Provide Current Addresses and Telephone Numbers of Class Members to Plaintiffs' Counsel by Linda Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Childs, Robert) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
37 ORDER granting 36 Motion to Compel Def to disclose contact information for certain prospective class members. [THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY − NO ATTACHED ORDER]. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 10/6/08. (DJS, ) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
38 MEMORANDUM OPINION −Certifying class.. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 10/6/08. (DJS, ) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
39 ORDER certifying class.. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 10/6/08. (DJS, ) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
40 ORDER denying 31 Motion to Dismiss − consistent with Docs. 38/39. [THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY − NO ATTACHED ORDER]. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 10/6/08. (DJS, ) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
41 ORDER denying 34 Motion. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 10/06/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 10/06/2008)

Case: 5:07-cv-64 As of: 06/03/2010 08:58 PM CDT 5 of 6

10/14/2008 10/15/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/19/2008 10/21/2008
10/21/2008 10/22/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/27/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/05/2008

42 MOTION to Stay by Steelcase, Inc.. (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
43 ORDER granting 42 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 10/15/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
44 First MOTION to Stay Motion To Modify The Order Granting Stay by Linda Johnson. (Childs, Robert) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
45 RESPONSE to Motion re 42 MOTION to Stay, 44 First MOTION to Stay Motion To Modify The Order Granting Stay Corrected Motion to Modify the Order Granting Stay filed by Linda Johnson. (Childs, Robert) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
46 RESPONSE in Opposition re 44 First MOTION to Stay Motion To Modify The Order Granting Stay filed by Steelcase, Inc.. (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
47 ORDER rescinding 44 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 10/19/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 10/19/2008)
48 Transcript of CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING Proceedings (Volumes I and II) held on 9/8/2008 and 9/9/2008, before Judge U.W. Clemon. Court Reporter/Transcriber Chanetta Sinkfield, Telephone number 205 278−2067. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. (See Transcript Redaction Policy) Redaction Request due 11/12/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/21/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/19/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Transcript continued 9/9/2008, # 2 Signature page 1, # 3 Signature Certificate Page 2) (SRJ, ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
49 MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Expert Report by Steelcase, Inc.. (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
50 Opposition to Motion For Extension Of Time To Submit Expert Report filed by Linda Johnson. (Childs, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
51 ORDER granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 10/24/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
52 ORDER. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 10/24/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
53 Evidentiary Material DEFENDANTS EXPERT REPORT. (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
54 Witness List Supplement by Linda Johnson. (Sherrod, Henry) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
55 Exhibit List for Trial of Nov. 10, 2008 by Linda Johnson.. (Childs, Robert) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
56 Witness List For Trial of Nov. 10, 2008 by Linda Johnson. (Childs, Robert) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
57 Exhibit List by Steelcase, Inc... (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
58 Witness List by Steelcase, Inc.. (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
59 Exhibit List Plaintiffs' Amended Exhibit List for Trial by Linda Johnson.. (Childs, Robert) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
60 Exhibit List Plaintiffs' Second Amended Exhibit List by Linda Johnson.. (Childs, Robert) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
61 Exhibit List Amended and Supplemented by Steelcase, Inc... (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 11/05/2008)

Case: 5:07-cv-64 As of: 06/03/2010 08:58 PM CDT 6 of 6

11/05/2008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008
11/19/2008 11/26/2008
12/10/2008 01/20/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009
10/05/2009

62 Witness List Supplemental by Steelcase, Inc.. (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
63 Exhibit List Defendant's Corrected Amended and Supplemented by Steelcase, Inc... (Crews, Roslyn) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
64 APPEAL ORDER that the Petition to Appeal from the USDC−ND of AL is DENIED; Petitioner's Motion to Stay US District Court's proceedings pending US Court of Appeals' review of petition is DENIED AS MOOT Issued before USCA Circuit Judges DUBINA, CARNES and PRYOR. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
65 ORDER. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 11/19/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
66 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement by Linda Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit B − Preliminary Approval Order, # 3 Exhibit C − Court Ordered Notice, # 4 Exhibit D − Claim Form)(Johnson, Herman) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
67 ORDER granting 66 Motion. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on 12/10/08. (Clemon, U) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
68 AFFIDAVIT Declaration of Brian Collis with Attached Exhibit No. 1 by Linda Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit No. 1)(Childs, Robert) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge U W Clemon: Fairness Hearing held on 1/28/2009. Separate order to be entered by the Court. (Court Reporter Sabrina Lewis.) (KLL, ) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
69 ORDER DISMISSING CASE based upon evidence presented at the Class Action Fairness Hearing held on 1/28/2009, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Each party shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge U W Clemon on January 28, 2009. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
Remark − Plaintiff's attorney will pickup Class Certificatin Hearing Depositions w/Exhibits contained in a box on 10/6/2009 per telephone converstion w/Ms Mary L. Blackwelder in attorney Robert Childs' office. (SRJ, ) (Entered: 10/05/2009)