IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.

DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORPORATION

COMPLAINT ) Jury Trial Demanded

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title I

of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of

disability and to provide appropriate relief to Christopher Heman, who was adversely affected by

such practices. The Commission alleges that Daimler Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") failed

to make reasonable accommodations and laid off Christopher Heman because of his disability, a

severely and permanently injured right foot.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

U.S.C. § 1981.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Chrysler has continuously been a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of Missouri and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Chrysler has continuously been an employer in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Chrysler has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Christopher Heman filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant Chrysler. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2

8. Since at least October 17, 2001, Defendant Chrysler engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Fenton, Missouri location, in violation of Section 102(a) and (b) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) and (b), by failing to accommodate and laying off Christopher Heman because of his disability.
9. The effect of these actions by Defendant Chrysler has been to deprive Christopher Heman of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of his disability.
10. The unlawful employment practices engaged in by Defendant Chrysler were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Christopher Heman.
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Chrysler, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of disability; B. Order Defendant Chrysler to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and that eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant Chrysler to make Christopher Heman whole by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement of Christopher Heman;
3

D. Order Defendant Chrysler to make Christopher Heman whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 8 above in amounts to be determined at trial;
E. Order Defendant Chrysler to make Christopher Heman whole by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 8 above, including compensation for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Order Defendant Chrysler to pay Christopher Heman punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest;
H. Award the Commission its costs incurred in this action.
4

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised in its Complaim.
Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
ROBERT G. JOH~S~y
Re.. altAttomey
BA~A~RA~A. SEELY Supervisory Trial Attorney
MELVIN D. KENNEDY Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Federal Bldg. 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 (314) 539-7914 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTLrNITY COMMISSION
5

 
 yment Opportunity CommisCsioansve. D4:a0im5l-ecrCvh-0ry0sl7e7r C8o-CrpEorJation DCoacseu:m4:e0n5-tc6v-007F78il-eCdEJ08/F1i5le/2D0at0e:505/25P/2a0g0e5 1 oDfo3c #: 2.1 p: 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

CHRISTOPHER HEMAN,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant.

)

Cause No. 05CV00778CEJ

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff-Intervenor Christopher Heman, by and through his attorneys, and

for his Complaint against Daimler Chrysler Corporation states as follows:

1. Plaintiff-Intervenor Christopher Heman brings this action for legal and equitable

relief to redress the injuries done to him by Defendant Daimler Chrysler Corporation.

2. Plaintiff-Intervenor brings his complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act

of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331.

3. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were committed within

the Eastern District of Missouri.

4. Plaintiff-Intervenor Christopher Heman is a male citizen of the United States, who,

at all times relevant herein, resided in Fenton, Missouri.

yment Opportunity CommisCsioansve. D4:a0im5l-ecrCvh-0ry0sl7e7r C8o-CrpEorJation DCoacseu:m4:e0n5-tc6v-007F78il-eCdEJ08/F1i5le/2D0at0e:505/25P/2a0g0e5 2 oDfo3c #: 2.1 p: 2 of 3
5. Plaintiff-Intervenor Heman is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) in that he has a severe and permanent foot injury that substantially limits him in the major life activities of walking and standing.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Daimler Chrysler Corporation has been a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of Missouri, has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees and has been an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A).
7. Since at least October 17, 2001, Defendant Daimler Chrysler has failed to accommodate Plaintiff-Intervenor Heman’s disability and laid Heman off from work because of his disability in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) and (b).
8. As a result of Defendant’s aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff has lost compensation and benefits of employment, has suffered emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.
9. Defendant’s conduct was undertaken with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights.
10. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees and costs in connection with this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in his favor and against Defendant for lost wages and other benefits of employment; front pay; compensatory damages; punitive damages; appropriate injunctive relief; prejudgment interest; attorney's fees and costs; and for such additional relief as this Court deems appropriate.

yment Opportunity CommisCsioansve. D4:a0im5l-ecrCvh-0ry0sl7e7r C8o-CrpEorJation DCoacseu:m4:e0n5-tc6v-007F78il-eCdEJ08/F1i5le/2D0at0e:505/25P/2a0g0e5 3 oDfo3c #: 2.1 p: 3 of 3
SEDEY & RAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Alicia Y. Waller
Mary Anne Sedey, #5124 Alicia Y. Waller, #117157 3030 S. Grand Blvd., Ste. 200 St. Louis, MO 63118 314/773-3566 314/773-3615 (fax)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served via the Court’s electronic filing system upon Barbara A. Seely and Melvin D. Kennedy, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, St. Louis District Office, Robert A. Young Federal Bldg., 1222 Spruce St., Rm. 8.100, St. Louis, MO 63103 and via U.S. mail to The Corporation Company, Registered Agent for Daimler Chrysler Corporation, 120 S. Central Ave., Clayton, MO 63105 this 25th day of May, 2005.
/s/ Alicia Y. Waller ___________________________________

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00778-CEJ Document 14 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

CHRISTOPHER HEMAN,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant.

)

Cause No. 05CV00778CEJ

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR CHRISTOPHER HEMAN’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff-Intervenor Christopher Heman, by and through his attorneys, and

for his Complaint against Daimler Chrysler Corporation states as follows:

1. Plaintiff-Intervenor Christopher Heman brings this action for legal and equitable

relief to redress the injuries done to him by Defendant Daimler Chrysler Corporation.

2. Plaintiff-Intervenor brings his complaint under the Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331.

3. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were committed within

the Eastern District of Missouri.

4. Plaintiff-Intervenor Christopher Heman is a male citizen of the United States,

who, at all times relevant herein, resided in Fenton, Missouri.

Case 4:05-cv-00778-CEJ Document 14 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 2 of 3
5. Plaintiff-Intervenor Heman is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) in that he has a severe and permanent foot injury that substantially limits him in the major life activities of walking and standing.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Daimler Chrysler Corporation has been a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of Missouri, has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees and has been an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A).
7. Since at least October 17, 2001, Defendant Daimler Chrysler has failed to accommodate Plaintiff-Intervenor Heman’s disability and laid Heman off from work because of his disability in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) and (b).
8. As a result of Defendant’s aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff has lost compensation and benefits of employment.
9. Defendant’s conduct was undertaken with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights.
10. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees and costs in connection with this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in his favor and against Defendant for lost wages and other benefits of employment; front pay; punitive damages; appropriate injunctive relief; prejudgment interest; attorney's fees and costs; and for such additional relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Case 4:05-cv-00778-CEJ Document 14 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 3 of 3
SEDEY & RAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Alicia Y. Waller
Mary Anne Sedey, #5124 Alicia Y. Waller, #117157 3030 S. Grand Blvd., Ste. 200 St. Louis, MO 63118 314/773-3566 314/773-3615 (fax)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was served via the Court’s electronic notification system on William C. Martucci and Carrie A. McAtee, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., 2555 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64108, Attorney for Defendant, this 25th day of October, 2005.
/s/ Alicia Y. Waller

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00778-CEJ Document 38 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

CHRISTOPHER HEMAN

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

)

vs.

)

)

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 4:05-CV-778 CEJ

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the joint motion of the plaintiff and the plaintiff-intervenor to compel. Defendant has responded, and the issues are fully briefed. A case management order was entered in this case on October 13, 2005, setting deadlines for the completion of discovery (June 16, 2006), reference to alternative dispute resolution (November 15, 2005 through January 17, 2006), and dispositive motions (July 28, 2006). The Court later granted a joint motion by the parties for extension of time in which to complete mediation. More recently, the parties jointly moved to extend the briefing deadlines and trial date by two months in order to accommodate six depositions, noticed by plaintiff a week before the close of discovery. The Court denied the motion for the reason that plaintiffs had eight months in which to notice the depositions, but

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 4:05-cv-00778-CEJ Document 38 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 2 of 3
delayed doing so until the week before the close of discovery. Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor now move to compel defendant to produce witnesses for depositions before August 15, 2006.
Defendant joined the motion for an extension of time to accommodate the depositions, on the condition that the parties would move for a two-month extension of the dispositive motions deadline and trial date. The extension of time was necessary, the defendant argued, because of the scheduling difficulties imposed by the looming dispositive motions deadline and the proximity of the shutdown of the DaimlerChrysler plant to an earlier proposed trial date. Defendant now claims that compelling it to produce witnesses for depositions “presents significant challenges and prejudice to DaimlerChrysler due to the press of deadlines (including the July 28 dispositive motion deadline) and substantial scheduling issues.”
Although the plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor offered to limit the length and number of depositions they noticed, defendant remains unwilling to accommodate depositions beyond the discovery deadline. It is, of course, the defendant’s prerogative to decline to stipulate to an extension of the discovery cut-off set forth in the case management order, in order to have time to prepare a dispositive motion. Plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor have offered no compelling reason for their failure to take depositions during the eight months allotted for discovery in this case. At this point, the only way to allow the depositions to proceed without prejudicing the defendant would be to adjust the trial date and the deadline for dispositive motions. A district court has
-2-
PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 4:05-cv-00778-CEJ Document 38 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 3 of 3 “wide discretion in its handling of discovery matters and its decisions will be upheld ‘unless, in the totality of the circumstances, its rulings are seen to be a gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness in the trial of the case.’” O’Neal v. Riceland Foods, 684 F.2d 577, 581 (8th Cir. 1982), quoting Voegeli v. Lewis, 568 F.2d 89, 96 (8th Cir. 1977). The Court remains unwilling to compromise the speedy disposition of this case in the absence of a reasonable justification.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff and plaintiffintervenor’s motion to compel [#36] is denied.
CAROL E. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 24th day of July, 2006.
- 3 PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 
 E.E.O.C. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 3360629 United States District Court,
E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and
Christopher Heman, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant.
No. 4:05-CV-00778 CEJ. | Nov. 20, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Melvin D. Kennedy, Robert G. Johnson, Barbara A. Seely, EEOC, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
John D. Lynn, Sedey Harper, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff/Plaintiff-Intervenor.
Mary Anne O. Sedey, Alicia Y. Waller, Sedey Harper, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Intervenor.
William C. Martucci, Carrie A. McAtee, Shook and Hardy, L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CAROL E. JACKSON, District Judge.
*1 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and plaintiff-intervenor Christopher Heman bring this action against defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation, pursuant the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq. Heman alleges that defendant failed to accommodate his disability. DaimlerChrysler moves for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. Heman and the EEOC oppose the motion, and the issues are fully briefed.
I. Legal Standard Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment shall be entered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In ruling on a motion for summary judgment the court is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts. AgriStor Leasing v. Farrow, 826 F.2d 732, 734 (8th Cir.1987). The moving party bears the burden of showing both the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party may not rest on the allegations of his pleadings but must set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Rule 56(c) “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corporation v. Citrate, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
II. Background 1

E.E.O.C. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
Heman began working at the DaimlerChrysler facility in Fenton, Missouri, in 1984. In the ensuing years, he performed a variety of jobs, including wheelhouse buildup, strut tower buildup, and kickboard buildup. On August 28, 1997, Heman had just finished a shift working the kickboard buildup job when a co-worker ran over his right foot with a forklift truck. Heman’s foot was crushed in the accident, and he underwent emergency surgery. Two of his toes were amputated and a third toe is permanently bent. Heman also lost the flesh on the ball of his foot; as a result he has no padding or cushioning in this area, a condition he describes as “skin on bone.”
Heman remained on medical leave until November 1998 when DaimlerChrysler cleared him to return to work, with the medical restriction of no standing for 75 percent of the day. Thereafter, Heman, his union representative and the defendant engaged in discussions about the availability of jobs that were consistent with Heman’s seniority and work restriction. Heman did not resume working until June 1999. He was assigned to work as a starter wire harness installer, a job that could be performed while seated in a chair and for which he required no accommodation.
*2 Heman contends that during late 2000 and early 2001, the starter wire installer job requirements began to change. New elements of the job required him to stand up every forty-two seconds to insert a clip on the top of the engine. Plaintiff testified this repetitive standing put pressure on the metatarsal bones of his right foot and was painful.
The changes to the starter wire installer job were consistent with a plant-wide workforce reduction program. Between late 2000 and April 2001, defendant sent safety inspectors and a union inspector to test the starter wire installer job requirements for compliance with “specification guidelines.” In early 2001, Heman and defendant discussed several specific accommodations. Those included: a hydraulic-lift chair that would obviate Heman’ s need to stand, an oven to warm the starter wires, and transferring the task of tightening the starter nut to another employee who used an electric wrench.
Heman was on medical leave between April and October 2001 following a car accident. He testified in his deposition that when he returned to work, he found that further changes had been made to the starter wire installer job. As a result, he could no longer perform the job without experiencing significant pain. On October 17, 2001, defendant placed Heman on layoff because there was no work available within his seniority and medical restrictions.
On several occasions between October 2001 and September 2004, Heman returned to the plant for evaluations by the defendant’s medical personnel. After each evaluation, defendant determined there were no jobs available within Heman’s medical restriction of no standing 75 percent of the time. On September 8, 2004, Heman, along with his union representative and several of defendant’s employees, toured the plant floor to observe jobs and discuss possible accommodations for Heman. On September 15, 2004, the same group again toured the shop floor, and Heman identified the fork truck driver job as one he could perform with or without accommodation.
Heman returned to work at DaimlerChrysler as a fork truck driver on September 20, 2004. On October 10, 2004, he was severely injured in an automobile accident. He was on medical leave following the accident until September 2005.
On September 9, 2005, a plant doctor examined Heman and found that he could not stand for an eight-hour shift, he could occasionally bend/twist and squat, and he could lift 11-20 pounds. In October 2005, the plant physician determined that Heman’s medical restrictions would continue permanently. The company’s medical records reflect Heman’ s complaints of pain when standing or walking related to the loss of the metatarsal pad on his right foot. On December 1, 2005, the physician noted that Heman could work “in sit down capacity,” but that he “should not be bending over.”
In his deposition, Heman testified that he has taken a variety of prescription pain medications since the 1997 accident, he wears orthotic devices in both shoes, and he follows a pain management routine that includes desensitization therapy and massage therapy. Nevertheless, he never experiences complete relief from the pain. He testified that he can stand only for a few minutes at a time without experiencing severe pain; he felt that thirty minutes would be the total amount of time that he could be on his feet in a given day. Heman walks short distances, such as from one room to another, without assistance. He uses an electric wheelchair or motorized cart for grocery shopping or walking his dog; he has made brief trips to a convenience store without these devices. Heman testified that he performs household tasks (i.e., folding laundry and balancing the checkbook) while seated; he also sits while fishing and he hunts from a car with a stationary crossbow.
III. Discussion *3 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodations to the known physical ... limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an ... employee, unless [the employer] can
2

E.E.O.C. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) (2006). Whether a disability exists is an individualized inquiry. Toyota Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 198 (2002).
To obtain relief under the ADA, a plaintiff must show he (1) has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, (2) is a “qualified individual” under the ADA, and (3) “suffered an adverse employment action as a result of the disability.” Fenney v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir.2003) (citation omitted).
When a plaintiff claims his employer has failed to make reasonable accommodation for his disability, the Court applies a modified burden-shifting analysis.1 Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 62 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.1995). Under that modified approach, a plaintiff “at all times retains the burden of persuading the trier of fact that he has been the victim of illegal discrimination due to his disability.” Fenney, 327 F.3d at 712.
The ADA defines a disability as “a physical ... impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of [an] individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (2006). Physical impairments include “cosmetic disfigurement” or “anatomical loss” affecting the musculoskeletal system. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1) (2006). A person is substantially limited if a long-term or permanent impairment prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives. Kammueller v. Loomis, Fargo & Co., 383 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir.2004) (emphasis omitted); see also Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197.2 The factors to be considered when determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity are: (i) the nature and severity of the impairment, (ii) the duration or expected duration of the impairment, and (iii) the permanent or long term impact ... of or resulting from the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2); see also Philip v. Ford Motor Co., 328 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir.2002). An assessment of whether a plaintiff is substantially limited in a major life activity must consider the effects of mitigating devices. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 482 (1999); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432, 439 (7th Cir.2000).
To be a “qualified individual,” the employee must possess “the requisite skill, education, experience, and training for his position” and must “be able to perform the essential job functions, with or without accommodation.” Fenney, 327 F.3d at 712. “An essential function ‘means the fundamental job duties of the employment position’ “ and does not include “marginal functions of the position.” Canny v. Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up Bottling Group, Inc., 439 F.3d 894, 900 (8th Cir.2006), citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). Evidence of an essential function includes the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, and the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function, among other factors. Id.; see also Heaser v.. Toro Co., 247 F.3d 826, 830 (8th Cir.2001).
*4 If the employer disputes that the employee can perform the essential functions of the job, the burden shifts to the employer to provide evidence of those essential functions. Fenney, 327 F.3d at 712. If the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job without accommodation, the employee must make a facial showing that an accommodation is possible. Id. The burden of production then shifts to the employer to show it is unable to accommodate the employee. Id. If the employer carries that burden, the employee must then present evidence of his individual capabilities. Id. At that point, the “employee’s burden merges with his ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that he has suffered unlawful discrimination.” Id.
An adverse employment action is “one that causes a material change in the terms or conditions of employment.” Fenney, 327 F.3d at 716 (citations omitted). To be adverse, the action need not rise to the level of termination or a reduction of benefits or pay, but “not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action.” Id. (citations omitted).
Under ADA regulations, to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, an employer may need to “initiate an informal interactive process” with a disabled employee in need of accommodation. Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 951 (8th Cir.1999), citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). This interactive process “should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Id. To establish an employer failed to engage in the interactive process, a plaintiff “must show (1) he was disabled, (2) he requested accommodations, (3) [the employer] did not assist him in seeking accommodations, and (4) he could have been reasonably accommodated but for [the employer’s] lack of good faith.” Canny, 439 F.3d at 902 (citations omitted).
A. Whether plaintiff is disabled It is undisputed that Heman has continued to experience pain in his right foot since the 1997 accident, and that the pain
3

E.E.O.C. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
becomes excruciating when he is on his feet for longer than a few minutes at a time. It is also undisputed that Heman’s foot pain affects his ability to engage in the major life activities of standing and walking. However, defendant argues that the foot pain Heman experiences does not substantially limit these major life activities and, therefore, Heman is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Specifically, defendant argues that the evidence of Heman’s ability “to stand, walk, shop for groceries, do laundry, care for his pet, hunt, fish, drive a car, shower, groom himself, and run errands” belies any claim of a substantial limitation.
In Toyota, 534 U.S. 184, the Supreme Court wrote that “to be substantially limited in [the major life activity of] performing manual tasks, an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives. The impairment’s impact must also be permanent or long term.” Id. at 198. The Court ruled that the trial court erred when it considered how an impairment affected manual tasks associated with a particular job. Id. The proper inquiry was how the impairment affected manual tasks of central importance to people’s daily lives. Id.
*5 Here, defendant emphasizes that Heman ultimately is able to perform the manual tasks, albeit with some pain. Heman emphasizes the limitation resulting from the pain he experiences when performing the task. Because determination of this dispute would require weighing the evidence, this matter is not appropriate for summary judgment.
Defendant also argues that the recent decision in Didier v. Schwan Food Co., 2006 WL 2934290 (8th Cir.2006) is dispositive of the claims asserted here. The Eighth Circuit in Didier found that the plaintiff had failed to show the required nexus between his claimed disability and his requested accommodation. Here, Heman claims that he is substantially limited in the major life activities of standing and walking, and he has asked that the defendant accommodate his disability by re-assigning him to a fork truck driver position, a job that requires minimal standing and walking. Thus, unlike the plaintiff in Didier, Heman has demonstrated the required nexus between his claimed disability and his requested accommodation.
The instant case more closely resembles Fenney, 327 F.3d 707, supra, which was also discussed in Didier. The plaintiff in Fenney was able to bathe, shave, prepare a meal, dress, etc., but he required more time than the average person to do so. Thus, he requested that his employer accommodate him by giving him longer notice as to when he would be called in to work. Id. Like the plaintiff in Fenney, Heman is able to stand and walk, but only for a few minutes at a time before the pain becomes excruciating. He has requested the job of fork truck driver, which he says would not require him to stand and walk for extended periods of time.
The Court concludes that a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether Heman’s impairment severely restricts his ability to perform activities of central importance to most people’s daily lives-in this case, standing and walking.
B. Whether plaintiff is a qualified individual Defendant argues that even if Heman is disabled, he is not a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA because he could not perform the essential functions of the fork truck job with or without accommodation. Defendant presents evidence stating that Heman was responsible for 37 minutes of production downtime on October 7, 2004, when he was driving the fork truck. Apart from Heman’s deposition testimony describing the fork truck job, defendant presents no other evidence of the job’s essential functions.
Heman claims that he is able to perform the fork truck job because the truck uses hand levers and he can push the pedals with his left foot. He argues that there were causes for the production interruption on October 7, 2004 unrelated to his performance.3 He also submits records showing that employees with less seniority than he have performed the fork truck job since 2001. The Court concludes that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Heman was able to perform the essential functions of the fork truck job.
C. Whether defendant engaged in the interactive process *6 Defendant argues that it has engaged in a good-faith interactive process with Heman, and thus Heman cannot show that but for defendant’s lack of good faith, he could have been reasonably accommodated. Defendant further argues that Heman has resisted the interactive process in bad faith, thus foreclosing any claim that he should have been accommodated.
The parties have presented evidence showing that at various times after Heman returned to work following the 1997 accident,
4

E.E.O.C. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
they engaged in discussions about the jobs Heman could perform and any modifications that might be necessary to accommodate his medical restrictions. Evidence also shows that Heman made requests for accommodation and, specifically, a request to be returned to the fork truck job which he could perform within his physical limitations. On multiple occasions before filing this action, Heman submitted to evaluations by the company’s medical department in an ongoing effort to identify work that was within his medical and seniority restrictions. Heman states that after filing suit in May 2005, he has hesitated to further pursue informal efforts at accommodation. Nevertheless, Heman states that he visited the plant in April 2006 and requested placement as a fork truck driver. Also, he appeared for a medical reevaluation on June 6, 2006; the plant doctor continued the existing medical restrictions.
Based on the present record, the Court concludes that a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether defendant engaged in the interactive process in good faith and whether Heman refused to engage in meaningful participation in the process.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation for summary judgment [# 39] is denied.

Parallel Citations

18 A.D. Cases 1582, 33 NDLR P 184

Footnotes

1

If a party alleges a claim of discriminatory disparate treatment, the Court applies the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

2

The Eighth Circuit does not use the test employed by the EEOC. Kammueller, 383 F.3d at 784, n. 2. Under the EEOC test, a person

is “substantially limited” if, compared to an “average person in the general population,” he cannot perform or is “significantly

restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which” he “can perform a particular major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. §

1630.2(j)(1)(i)-(ii).

3

Defendant argues that the relevant inquiry is not whether Heman was in fact performing the fork truck job adequately, but whether

defendants believed his performance was inadequate. In support, they cite Scroggins v. University of Minnesota, 221 F.3d 1042,

1045 (8th Cir.2000). That case involved an accusation of retaliatory discharge, not failure to accommodate. Heman has not been

discharged from employment at DaimlerChrysler, so the Court has no occasion to inquire whether the stated reason for the

discharge was pretextual, the inquiry giving rise to the actual/perceived distinction.

5

 
 MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (LIVE) (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:05-cv-00778-CEJ

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. DaimlerChrysler Date Filed: 05/16/2005

Corporation

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Assigned to: Honorable Carol E. Jackson

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Cause: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Melvin D. Kennedy EEOC 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7910 Fax: 314-539-7895 Email: melvin.kennedy@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert G. Johnson EEOC 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7910 Fax: 314-539-7895 Email: robert.johnson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbara A. Seely EEOC 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7910 Fax: 314-539-7895 Email: barbara.seely@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John D. Lynn SEDEY HARPER, P.C. 2711 Clifton Avenue St. Louis, MO 63139 314-773-3566

1 of 10

5/29/2007 4:15 PM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report
V. Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman
V. Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation
2 of 10

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...
Fax: 314-773-3615 Email: jlynn@sedeyharper.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Anne O. Sedey SEDEY HARPER, P.C. 2711 Clifton Avenue St. Louis, MO 63139 314-773-3566 Fax: 314-773-3615 Email: msedey@sedeyharper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Y. Waller SEDEY HARPER, P.C. 2711 Clifton Avenue St. Louis, MO 63139 314-773-3566 Fax: 314-773-3615 Email: awaller@sedeyraylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna L. Harper SEDEY HARPER, P.C. 2711 Clifton Avenue St. Louis, MO 63139 314-773-3566 Fax: 314-773-3615 Email: dharper@sedeyharper.com TERMINATED: 03/24/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John D. Lynn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William C. Martucci SHOOK AND HARDY, L.L.P. 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 816-474-6550 Fax: 816-421-4066
5/29/2007 4:15 PM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...

Email: wmartucci@shb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie A. McAtee SHOOK AND HARDY, L.L.P. 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 816-559-2512 Fax: 816-421-5547 Email: cmcatee@shb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/16/2005
05/16/2005 05/25/2005 07/15/2005 07/20/2005 08/15/2005
08/15/2005 09/06/2005 09/08/2005
09/28/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation Waivers issued 1, Disclosure of Corporate Interest issued to Daimler Chrysler Corporation, Jury Demand,, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Original Filing Form)(CDD, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
WAIVER of Service issued to defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (CDD, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
2 MOTION for Leave to Intervene Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Waller, Alicia) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by DaimlerChrysler Corporation.(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
4 ENTRY of Appearance by William C. Martucci Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (Martucci, William) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
5 ORDER the motion of plaintiff-intervenor Christopher Heman to intervene 2 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff-intervenor attached to the motion to intervene shall be filed. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 8/15/05. (KKS, ) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
6 Intervenor COMPLAINT filed by Christopher Heman.(KKS, ) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
7 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by DaimlerChrysler Corporation.(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
8 RULE 16 ORDER. This case is assigned to Track: 2 (Standard). Joint Scheduling Plan due by 10/3/2005. Rule 16 Conference set for 10/13/2005 10:15 AM before Honorable Carol E. Jackson. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/8/05. (KLH, ) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
9 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATION INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 09/28/2005)

3 of 10

5/29/2007 4:15 PM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...

10/03/2005 10/13/2005
10/13/2005
10/26/2005 10/26/2005 10/31/2005 11/15/2005
11/17/2005 12/05/2005 12/07/2005 02/09/2006 02/09/2006

10 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation.. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
11 ORDER the parties shall submit completetranscripts of all deposition testimony that is cited in support ofor in opposition to a motion. Excerpted portions of a witnessdeposition testimony will not be considered by the Court absent ashowing of good cause for not submitting the entire transcript.. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 10/13/05. (LLW, ) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
12 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER This case is assigned to Track: 2, standard Motion to Join Parties due by 11/3/2005. Discovery Completion due by 6/16/2006. ADR Future Reference 11/15/2005. Dispositive Motions due by 7/28/2006. Jury Trial set for 12/4/2006 09:00 AM before Honorable Carol E. Jackson. Pretrial Compliance due by 11/14/2006.. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 10/13/05. (LLW, ) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
13 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman. (Waller, Alicia) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
14 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation Amendment to 1 Complaint, , filed by Christopher Heman. Related document: 1 Complaint, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,.(Waller, Alicia) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
15 ORDER denying as moot 13 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 10/31/05. (LLW, ) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
16 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Alternative Dispute Resolution. This case is referred to: Mediation Designation of Lead Counsel: Barbara Seely ADR Completion Deadline due by 1/17/2006. Designation of Neutral due by 12/5/2005. ADR Conference Schedule due by 12/5/2005.. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 11/15/05. (LLW, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
17 ANSWER to Amended Complaint DaimlerChrysler Corporation's Answer to Plaintiff-Intervenor Christopher Heman's First Amended Complaint by DaimlerChrysler Corporation.(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
18 Joint MOTION for Extension of: Time to select mediator by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
19 ORDER granting 18 Motion for Extension : time to select a neutral and complete ADR ;Extension date: parties granted thru 1/5/06 to get neutra; thru 2/28/06 to complete mediation Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/7/05. (CQL, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
20 MOTION to Appoint Lead Counsel names:Melvin D. Kennedy by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
21 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Mediation by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

4 of 10

5/29/2007 4:15 PM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...

02/09/2006 02/09/2006
02/10/2006 02/16/2006 03/15/2006 03/16/2006 03/22/2006 03/23/2006 03/24/2006 05/16/2006 05/26/2006 06/06/2006 06/14/2006 06/19/2006 07/02/2006

22 ORDER Melvin D. Kennedy shall be substituted for Barbara A.Seely as designated lead counsel for plaintiff. GRANTED. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 2/9/06. (LLW, ) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
23 Designation of Neutral by parties and ADR Conference Report by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Neutral: Jerome A. Diekemper Date of Conference: March 14, 2006 time: 9:30 a.m. Location: 7730 Carondelet, Suite 200, St. Louis, MO 63105(Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
24 ORDER granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Mediation ADR Completion Deadline due by 3/14/2006. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 2/10/06. (LLW, ) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
25 NOTICE of Appointment of Neutral - Neutral name: Jerry Diekemper. Neutral selected by parties, notice of appointment and order of referral e-mailed to Neutral Diekemper.(SAC, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
26 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Mediation by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman. (Waller, Alicia) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
27 ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Mediation ADR Completion Deadline due by 5/15/2006. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/16/06. (CQL, ) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
28 NOTICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Firm Name Change and Entry of Appearance: (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
29 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Donna L. Harper by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Harper, Donna) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
30 ORDER granting 29 motion of plaintiff intervenor's counsel to withdraw after mistakenly filing an entry of appearance. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/24/06. (KLH, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
31 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ;attorney/firm Alicia Y. Waller by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman. (Waller, Alicia) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
32 ADR COMPLIANCE REPORT by Neutral: Jerry Diekemper. Date of Conference: May 11, 2006. The parties participated in good faith, and the parties DID NOT achieve a settlement.(SAC, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
33 ORDER denying 31 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney as to Alicia Waller counsel for pltf-intervenor. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/6/06. (LLW, ) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
34 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 12 Case Management Order, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
35 ORDER denying 34 Motion to Amend/Correct the Case Management Order Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/19/06. (LLW, ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
36 Joint MOTION to Compel by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 #

5 of 10

5/29/2007 4:15 PM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...

07/07/2006 07/24/2006 07/28/2006 07/28/2006 07/28/2006
08/10/2006 08/14/2006 08/15/2006
09/11/2006 09/11/2006

5)(Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 07/02/2006)
37 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 Joint MOTION to Compel filed by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Declaration of Carrie A. McAtee)# 2 Exhibit B (Defendant's Rule 26 Disclosure Statement)# 3 Exhibit C (Defendant's 06-30-06 Correspondence))(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
38 ORDER denying 36 Motion to Compel Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 7/24/06. (LLW, ) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
39 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
40 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
41 STATEMENT of Material Facts re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 1A# 3 Exhibit 1B# 4 Exhibit 1C# 5 Exhibit 1D# 6 Exhibit 1E# 7 Exhibit 2 Part 1# 8 Exhibit 2 Part 2# 9 Exhibit 2 Part 3# 10 Exhibit 2 Part 4# 11 Exhibit 2 Part 5# 12 Exhibit 2 Part 6# 13 Exhibit 2 Part 7# 14 Exhibit 3# 15 Exhibit 3A# 16 Exhibit 3B# 17 Exhibit 3C# 18 Exhibit 3D# 19 Exhibit 3E# 20 Exhibit 3F# 21 Exhibit 3G# 22 Exhibit 4# 23 Exhibit 5# 24 Exhibit 6# 25 Exhibit 6A# 26 Exhibit 7# 27 Exhibit 7A# 28 Exhibit 7B# 29 Exhibit 7C# 30 Exhibit 7D# 31 Exhibit 8)(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
42 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
43 NOTICE by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 41 Statement of Material Facts,, Filing of Exhibit: (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5A)(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
44 SCHEDULING ORDER: the plaintiff and plaintiffintervenor's motion 42 for an extension of time in which to file a response to defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the response shall be due on September 11, 2006. Any reply in support of the motion for summary judgment shall be due on September 21, 2006. Response to Court due by 9/11/2006.. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 8/15/06. (KKS, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
45 MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
46 RESPONSE in Opposition re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7)(Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 09/11/2006)

6 of 10

5/29/2007 4:15 PM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...

09/11/2006 09/11/2006
09/11/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/13/2006 09/18/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006
09/21/2006 10/03/2006 10/25/2006 11/14/2006

47 NOTICE of Filing Exhibit with the Clerk's Office in paper format by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 46 Response in Opposition to Motion (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
48 MOTION to Strike 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT?S STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED MATERIAL FACTS, CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS OF AFFIDAVITS AND SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
49 STATEMENT of Material Facts re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
EXHIBITS Received: Exhibits B-1 through B-5, color photographs, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Filed and maintained in paper format with the Clerk's Office as Document #47.(KLH, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
50 ORDER Clerk shall immediately disable links in the CM/ECF system to intervenor pltffs resonse #46 in opposition to defts motion for SJ #39; intervenor shall have 5 days to refile his response in opposition to defts motion for SJ. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/12/06. (CQL, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
51 SUPPLEMENTAL Redacted Document (per the Court's Order) re 46 Response in Opposition to Motion by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Sedey, Mary Anne) Modified on 9/14/2006 (LLW, ). (Entered: 09/13/2006)
52 ORDER the plaintiff's request for leave to file an overlength memorandum 45 is granted. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/18/06. (KKS, ) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
53 ENTRY of Appearance by John D. Lynn for Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lynn, John) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
54 RESPONSE in Opposition re 48 MOTION to Strike 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT?S STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED MATERIAL FACTS, CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS OF AFFIDAVITS AND SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS filed by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
55 REPLY to Response to Motion re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
56 NOTICE of Change of Address filed by Mary Anne O. Sedey (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
57 NOTICE by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation's Notice of Recent Authority: (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
58 TRIAL BRIEF by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered:

7 of 10

5/29/2007 4:15 PM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...

11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/15/2006 11/16/2006 11/17/2006 11/20/2006
11/21/2006
11/27/2006

11/14/2006)
59 Exhibit List by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
60 Witness List by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
61 Interrogatory Answer List by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
62 Proposed Jury Instructions by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
63 NOTICE by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation Joint Statement of Case for Purposes of Voir Dire: (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
64 Exhibit List by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Defendant's Potential Exhibits)(McAtee, Carrie) Modified on 11/15/2006 (KLH, ). (Entered: 11/14/2006)
65 Witness List by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
66 Proposed Jury Instructions by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
67 Deposition Desginations by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
68 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
69 Joint MOTION for Extension of: time by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
70 ORDER granting 69 Motion for Extension of Filing Objections and Motions in Limine ;Extension date: 11/27/06 Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 11/17/06. (LLW, ) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
71 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...See Order for All Specifics re:39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 11/20/06. (LLW, ) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
72 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. ORDERED that plaintiff's and plaintiffintervenor'smotion to strike 48 and defendants' motion tostrike 55 are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 11/21/06. (KLH, ) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
73 OBJECTION to Pretrial re 67 Deposition Designations by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

8 of 10

5/29/2007 4:15 PM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...

11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006
11/27/2006 11/27/2006
11/27/2006 11/28/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006
12/05/2006 12/18/2006

Related document: 67 Deposition Designations filed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation,.(Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
74 OBJECTION to Pretrial re 64 Exhibit List by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Related document: 64 Exhibit List filed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation,.(Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
75 MOTION in Limine by Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Heman, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
76 OBJECTION to Pretrial re 62 Proposed Jury Instructions DaimlerChrysler's Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Instructions by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Related document: 62 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, Christopher Heman,.(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
77 OBJECTION to Pretrial re 59 Exhibit List DaimlerChrysler's Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibit List by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Related document: 59 Exhibit List filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, Christopher Heman,.(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
78 OBJECTION to Pretrial re 61 Interrogatory Answer List DaimlerChrysler's Objections to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Answer Designations by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Related document: 61 Interrogatory Answer List filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, Christopher Heman,.(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
79 MOTION in Limine by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Heman Deposition Excerpt)(McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
80 Proposed Voir Dire by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
81 ORDER All pending Motions are denied as moot Dismissal Paper(s) due by 12/19/2006.. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/4/06. (CQL, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
82 Minute Entry for Pass of settlement proceedings held before Judge Carol E. Jackson ; Parties announced settlement; Parties to file motion to dismiss or stipulation for dismissal within the next 7-10 days; Parties advised that if any jurors appear for trial that the costs will be assessed and split. (Court Reporter: G Bond.) (proceedings started: 9:10.) (proceedings ended: 9:11.) (KKS, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
83 ORDER is Pltff and pltff-intervenor shall pay $147.45 in costs and defendant shall pay $147.45 in costs; Further Ordered that the parties shall pay their shares not later than 12/11/06 to the Clerk of Court all for jury costs. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/5/06. (CQL, ) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
84 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File ;Extension to file the following: Stipulation of Dismissal ;Proposed extension date December 22, 2006 by Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation. (McAtee, Carrie) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

9 of 10

5/29/2007 4:15 PM

MOED - CM/ECF (LIVE) - Docket Report

https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116554661706235-L_...

12/28/2006 01/03/2007 01/05/2007

85 ORDER granting 84 Motion for Extension of Time to File: a stipulation for dismissal; Extension date: 12/29/06. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/28/06. (KLH, ) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
86 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Christopher Heman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
87 ORDER OF DISMISSAL. ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. The parties' costs shall be distributed as specified in the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/5/07. (KLH, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/29/2007 16:16:09

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

eeoc 4:05-cv-00778-CEJ 0.48

10 of 10

5/29/2007 4:15 PM