Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

DONNELL ADDISON, KAREN ALEXANDER, )

EDDIE ANDERSON, KEITH CLARK,

)

BILLY HERRING, KENDRICK HUNT,

)

ROY OLIVER, AND FRED WIGGINS,

)

)

Intervening Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

TRI-STATE PLUMBING, HEATING &

)

AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS, INC., )

)

and

)

)

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS, )

PIPEFITTERS, and SPRINKLERFITTERS, )

PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 17,

)

)

and

)

)

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN )

and APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING and )

PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY of the UNITED

)

STATES and CANADA

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-2717 B P JURY TRIAL DEMAND

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (Title VII), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

U.S.C. §1981, and 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) to correct unlawful employment practices on the

basis of race, sex, and retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII and

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 2 of 14
by the XII and XIV Amendments to the United States Constitution, and to provide appropriate relief to African American employees and union members. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc, and Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17, an affiliated and/or chartered local with the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada subjected African American employees and union members to unlawful discrimination because of their race and to unlawful retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1985(3), and that Defendant Employer subjected a female employee to unlawful discrimination because of her sex.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3). 2. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Donnell Addison, (“Addison”) is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a
2

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 3 of 14
Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Local Union No.17 (“Defendant Union” and/or “Local 17”). He resides at 577 Haynes Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38111.
4. Plaintiff, Karen Alexander, is an African-American female who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Local Union No.17 (“Defendant Union” and/or “Local 17”). She resides at 664 Regent Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38106.
5. Plaintiff, Eddie Anderson, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Local Union No.17 (“Defendant Union” and/or “Local 17”). He resides at 428 Parkdale Drive, Memphis, Tennessee 38109.
6. Plaintiff, Keith Clark, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Local Union No.17 (“Defendant Union” and/or “Local 17”). He resides at 261 Ayer, Apartment 5, Memphis, Tennessee 38105.
7. Plaintiff, Billy Herring, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning
3

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 4 of 14
Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Local Union No.17 (“Defendant Union” and/or “Local 17”). He resides at 3412 Windy Hollow Circle, Memphis, Tennessee 38118.
8. Plaintiff, Kendrick Hunt, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Local Union No.17 (“Defendant Union” and/or “Local 17”). He resides at 2777 Treasure Island East, Memphis, Tennessee 38115.
9. Plaintiff, Roy Oliver, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Local Union No.17 (“Defendant Union” and/or “Local 17”). He resides at 1952 Goodhaven Drive, Memphis, Tennessee 38116.
10. Plaintiff, Fred Wiggins, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Local Union No.17 (“Defendant Union” and/or “Local 17”). He resides at 1319 Bugsby Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38127.
11. At all relevant times, Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air
4

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 5 of 14
Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (Defendant Employer) has continuously been a Tennessee corporation doing business in the state of Tennessee and the city of Memphis, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.
12. At all relevant times Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
13. At all relevant times, Defendants United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Local Union No.17, an affiliated and/or chartered Local with the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, which controls and governs the Defendant Local Union (collectively, Defendant Union) has continuously been an association of participating employees which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, has continuously had at least fifteen members, and has continuously maintained a hiring hall or hiring office which procures employees for an employer or procures for employees opportunities to work for an employer. At all relevant times, Defendant Union has been a recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Defendant Employer.
14. At all relevant times, Defendant Union has continuously been a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(d) and (e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(d) and (e).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 15. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt,
5

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 6 of 14
Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer and Defendant Union. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
16. Since at least approximately September 24, 2003, Defendant Employer has continually engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1985(3).
17. The unlawful employment practices involved discriminating against Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins, African American plumbers, apprentice plumbers and laborers, because of their race, by subjecting them to racial harassment.
18. These African American employees were subjected to racially derogatory comments, racially derogatory graffiti, and other unwelcome conduct based on race at the FedEx Forum work site.
19. Their supervisors were aware of this unwelcome racial conduct, but failed to take prompt and effective action to end it.
20. The unwelcome racial conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victims' employment and create an abusive working environment.
21. The unlawful employment practices also involved discriminating against Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins, because of their race, by subjecting them to different terms and conditions of employment at the FedEx Forum work site and other jobs within the relevant time period.
22. These African American employees were assigned to less desirable job
6

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 7 of 14
tasks because of their race, while similarly situated White employees were assigned to more desirable job tasks.
23. The unlawful employment practices also involved discriminating against Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins, because of their race, by denying them the opportunity to work overtime at the FedEx Forum work site because of their race while allowing similarly situated White employees to work overtime.
24. The unlawful employment practices also involved discriminating against Karen Alexander, a female laborer, by denying her the opportunity to work overtime at the FedEx Forum work site, because of her sex and race, while similarly situated male employees were allowed to work overtime.
25. Since at least approximately September 24, 2003, Defendant Employer has also engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) and 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1985(3).
26. The unlawful employment practices involved ending the employment of Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins in retaliation for their opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981.
27. After these employees complained about practices made unlawful by Title VII, and Defendant Employer became aware of their complaints, Defendant Employer ended their employment while allowing similarly situated and less qualified employees who had not opposed practices made unlawful by Title VII to work.
28. Since at least approximately May 17, 2004, Defendant Union has
7

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 8 of 14
continually engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
29. The unlawful employment practices involved discriminating against Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins, African American union members, by failing to represent them because of their race.
30. Certain of the African American union members complained to Defendant Union about racial discrimination by Defendant Employer at the FedEx Forum work site, but Defendant Union did not initiate and pursue effective corrective action to end the unlawful discrimination. Further, Employer was notified by Union of the Plaintiffs’ complaints and were threatened with termination. The Defendants acted in concert in the instant case, as well as in other instances to violate the Plaintiffs’ rights under statute and the Constitution to be free of discrimination or retaliation because of their race.
31. The unlawful employment practices also involved denying job referrals to Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Kendrick Hunt and Frederick Wiggins, African American union members, because of their race, while White union members who were less entitled to referral were referred.
32. Since at least approximately May 17, 2004, Defendant Union and Defendant Employer have also engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) and 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1985(3). The unlawful employment practices also involved denying job referrals to Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Kendrick Hunt and Frederick Wiggins, African American
8

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 9 of 14
union members, in retaliation for their opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII, while others who had not opposed unlawful employment practices, and who were less entitled to referral, were referred.
33. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 9 through 26 above has been to deprive Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees and union members because of their race, their opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII, and Ms. Alexander's sex.
34. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9 through 32 above were intentional.
35. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9 through 32 above were done with malice and/or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I - 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (Title VII) 36. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate as if pled herein verbatim paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35). 37. Defendant Employer engaged in an ongoing manner of discrimination against Plaintiffs because of their race and Ms. Alexander’s gender. Specifically, Defendant Employer treated Plaintiffs differently from similarly situated employees who
9

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 10 of 14
are not African American by assigning them to less desirable job tasks, denying them the opportunity to work overtime, and failing to stop racial harassment including racially derogatory comments, graffiti and other unwelcome conduct while working at the FedEx Forum work site. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Employer terminated their employment in retaliation for complaints made unlawful by Title VII.
38. Defendant Union engaged in unlawful employment practices against Plaintiffs because of their race by failing to represent them after complaints of discrimination were made against Defendant Employer, failing to initiate and pursue effective corrective action to end the discrimination, and denying job referrals.
39. Plaintiffs aver that the reason for this disparate treatment by Defendant Employer and Defendant Union was because of their race and Ms. Alexander’s gender, which is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.
COUNT II - 42 U.S.C. §1981 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate as if herein plead verbatim, paragraphs one (1) through thirty-nine (39). 41. Defendant Employer and Defendant Union are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 for refusing to contract with the Plaintiffs because of their race. Defendant Employer and Union also failed to grant the Plaintiffs the same benefits and privileges to contract with them as they extended to White employees and members. Finally, Defendant Employer and Union retaliated against the Plaintiffs for exercising their rights under Title VII and Section 1981. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages.
10

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 11 of 14
COUNT III- 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) 42. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate as if herein plead verbatim, paragraphs one (1) through forty-one(41). 43. Defendant Employer and Defendant Union are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) by conspiring to discriminate against the Plaintiffs because of their race, thereby depriving them of their Equal Protection rights and their rights under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the United States Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Therefore the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer and its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates against employees because of their race, sex, or opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII; B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Union and its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates against employees because of their race or opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII; C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African American employees, female employees, and employees who oppose practices made unlawful by
11

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 12 of 14
Title VII, and which eradicate the effects of Defendant Employer’s unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 9 through 27 above;
D. Order Defendant Union to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African American employees and employees who oppose practices made unlawful by Title VII, and which eradicate the effects of Defendant Union's unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 28 through 32 above;
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place reinstatement;
F. Order Defendant Union to make whole Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices;
G. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Order Defendant Union to make whole Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson,
12

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 13 of 14
Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, in amounts to be determined at trial;
I. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing compensation for nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, including emotional and psychological pain and suffering, in amounts to be determined at trial;
J. Order Defendant Union to make whole Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing compensation for nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, including emotional and psychological pain and suffering, in amounts to be determined at trial;
K. Order Defendant Employer to pay Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct, in amounts to be determined at trial;
L. Order Defendant Union to pay Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct, in amounts to be determined at trial;
M. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
13

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 14-1 Filed 03/08/2006 Page 14 of 14
N. Award the Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and expenses and their other costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, EVANS & PETREE PC

s/Michael R. Marshall

Michael R. Marshall

#15225

Caren B. Nichol

#16093

1000 Ridgeway Loop Road

Suite 200

Memphis, Tennessee 38120

Phone: (901) 525-6781

mmarshall@evanspetree.com

s/Kevin Sharp

Kevin Sharp

#16287

Drescher & Sharp, P.C.

1720 West End Ave.

Suite 300

Nashville, Tennessee 37207

ksharp@dsattorneys.com

14

 
 Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

DONNELL ADDISON, KAREN ALEXANDER, )

EDDIE ANDERSON, KEITH CLARK,

)

BILLY HERRING, KENDRICK HUNT,

)

ROY OLIVER, AND FRED WIGGINS,

)

)

Intervening Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

TRI-STATE PLUMBING, HEATING &

)

AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS, INC., )

)

and

)

)

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS,

)

PIPEFITTERS, and SPRINKLERFITTERS,

)

PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 17,

)

)

and

)

)

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN )

and APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING and )

PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY of the UNITED

)

STATES and CANADA

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-2717 B P JURY TRIAL DEMAND

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e et seq. (Title VII), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981,

and 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, sex, and

retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII and by the XII and XIV

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 2 of 15
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and to provide appropriate relief to African American employees and union members. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., Defendant United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (“United Association”), and Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers, Local Union No. 17 (“Local 17”), an affiliated and/or chartered local with the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (collectively “Defendant Unions”) subjected African American employees and union members to unlawful discrimination because of their race and to unlawful retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1985(3), and that Defendant Employer subjected a female employee to unlawful discrimination because of her sex.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3). 2. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Donnell Addison, (“Addison”) is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant
2

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 3 of 15
United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber and Local 17 (“Defendant Unions”). He resides at 577 Haynes Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38111.
4. Plaintiff, Karen Alexander, is an African-American female who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers and Local Union 17 (“Defendant Unions”). She resides at 664 Regent Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38106.
5. Plaintiff, Eddie Anderson, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Union and Local 17 (“Defendant Unions”). He resides at 428 Parkdale Drive, Memphis, Tennessee 38109.
6. Plaintiff, Keith Clark, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Union and Local 17 (“Defendant Unions”). He resides at 261 Ayer, Apartment 5, Memphis Tennessee 38105.
7. Plaintiff, Billy Herring, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Union and Local 17 (“Defendant Unions”). He resides at 3412 Windy Hollow Circle, Memphis, Tennessee 38118.
8. Plaintiff, Kendrick Hunt, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times,
3

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 4 of 15
was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Union and Local 17 (“Defendant Unions”). He resides at 2777 Treasure Island East, Memphis, Tennessee 38115.
9. Plaintiff, Roy Oliver, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Union and Local 17 (“Defendant Unions”). He resides at 1952 Goodhaven Drive, Memphis, Tennessee 38116.
10. Plaintiff, Fred Wiggins, is an African-American male who, at all relevant times, was employed by Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (“Defendant Employer” and/or “Tri-State”) and is a Member of Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumber’s Union and Local 17 (“Defendant Unions”). He resides at 1319 Bugsby Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38127.
11. At all relevant times, Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., (Defendant Employer) has continuously been a Tennessee corporation doing business in the state of Tennessee and the city of Memphis, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.
12. At all relevant times Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
13. At all relevant times, Defendants United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, and
4

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 5 of 15
Defendant Local 17, an affiliated and/or chartered Local with the United Association have continuously been an association of participating employees which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, have continuously had at least fifteen members, and have continuously maintained a hiring hall or hiring office which procures employees for an employer or procures for employees opportunities to work for an employer. At all relevant times, Defendant Unions have been a recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Defendant Employer.
14. At all relevant times, Defendant Unions have continuously been labor organizations engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(d) and (e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(d) and (e).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 15. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer and Defendant Local 17. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. Upon information and/or belief, the United Association was aware of said Charges of Discrimination and worked with Local 17 in formulating a response to the EEOC. 16. Since at least approximately September 24, 2003, Defendant Employer has continually engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1985(3). 17. The unlawful employment practices involved discriminating against Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy
5

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 6 of 15
Oliver and Frederick Wiggins, African American plumbers, apprentice plumbers and laborers, because of their race, by subjecting them to racial harassment.
18. These African American employees were subjected to racially derogatory comments, racially derogatory graffiti, and other unwelcome conduct based on race at the FedEx Forum work site.
19. Their supervisors were aware of this unwelcome racial conduct, but failed to take prompt and effective action to end it.
20. The unwelcome racial conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victims' employment and create an abusive working environment.
21. The unlawful employment practices also involved discriminating against Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins, because of their race, by subjecting them to different terms and conditions of employment at the FedEx Forum work site and other jobs within the relevant time period.
22. These African American employees were assigned to less desirable job tasks because of their race, while similarly situated White employees were assigned to more desirable job tasks.
23. The unlawful employment practices also involved discriminating against Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins, because of their race, by denying them the opportunity to work overtime at the FedEx Forum work site because of their race while allowing similarly situated White employees to work overtime.
24. The unlawful employment practices also involved discriminating against Karen
6

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 7 of 15
Alexander, a female laborer, by denying her the opportunity to work overtime at the FedEx Forum work site, because of her sex and race, while similarly situated male employees were allowed to work overtime.
25. Since at least approximately September 24, 2003, Defendant Employer has also engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) and 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1985(3).
26. The unlawful employment practices involved ending the employment of Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins in retaliation for their opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981.
27. After these employees complained about practices made unlawful by Title VII, and Defendant Employer became aware of their complaints, Defendant Employer ended their employment while allowing similarly situated and less qualified employees who had not opposed practices made unlawful by Title VII to work.
28. Since at least approximately May 17, 2004, Defendant Unions have continually engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
29. The unlawful employment practices involved discriminating against Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins, African American union members, by failing to represent them because of their race. Upon information and/or belief, Defendant United Association, which sufficiently controlled the operations of Local 17, was aware of said practices and failed to prevent and/or protect Plaintiffs from the discriminatory conduct in spite of its obligations under federal antidiscrimination laws
7

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 8 of 15
and its own constitution. Upon information and/or belief, Defendant United Association was aware of the racial demographics of the Memphis-Shelby County area, was aware of the underrepresentation of African-American members in Defendant Local 17, was aware that some or all of Plaintiffs were treated differently with respect to apprenticeship training, and was aware that African-American union members and applicants for membership were the victims of disparate treatment at the hands of Local 17 officers and/or agents, yet demonstrated a studied ambivalence toward the illegal conduct. Local 17 and the United Association allowed and encouraged “traveling” members from other locals to work through Local 17 despite the fact that the Intervening Plaintiffs were told that there was no work for them. These “traveling “members were mostly non-minorities. Upon information and belief, the United Association knew of the existence of travelers working through Local 17 and that the Intervening Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated to them, were unemployed. Consequently, and in addition thereto, upon information and/or belief, the United Association encouraged, ratified, authorized conducted, and/or condoned the discriminatory course of conduct of Local 17 by and through its officers and/or agents.
30. Certain of the African American union members complained to Defendant Local 17 personnel about racial discrimination by Defendant Employer at the FedEx Forum work site, but Defendant Unions did not initiate and pursue effective corrective action to end the unlawful discrimination. Further, Employer was notified by Defendant Unions of the Plaintiffs’ complaints and Plaintiffs were threatened with termination. The Defendants acted in concert in the instant case, as well as in other instances to violate the Plaintiffs’ rights under statute and the Constitution to be free of discrimination or retaliation because of their race.
31. The unlawful employment practices also involved denying job referrals to
8

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 9 of 15
Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Kendrick Hunt and Frederick Wiggins, African American union members, because of their race, while White union members who were less entitled to referral were referred.
32. Since at least approximately May 17, 2004, Defendant Unions and Defendant Employer have also engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) and 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1985(3). The unlawful employment practices also involved denying job referrals to Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Kendrick Hunt and Frederick Wiggins, African American union members, in retaliation for their opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII, while others who had not opposed unlawful employment practices, and who were less entitled to referral, were referred.
33. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 9 through 26 above has been to deprive Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees and union members because of their race, their opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII, and Ms. Alexander's sex.
34. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9 through 32 above were intentional.
35. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9 through 32 above were done with malice and/or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins.
9

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 10 of 15
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I - 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (Title VII) 36. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate as if pled herein verbatim paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35). 37. Defendant Employer engaged in an ongoing manner of discrimination against Plaintiffs because of their race and Ms. Alexander’s gender. Specifically, Defendant Employer treated Plaintiffs differently from similarly situated employees who are not African American by assigning them to less desirable job tasks, denying them the opportunity to work overtime, and failing to stop racial harassment including racially derogatory comments, graffiti and other unwelcome conduct while working at the FedEx Forum work site. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Employer terminated their employment in retaliation for complaints made unlawful by Title VII. 38. Defendant Local 17 engaged in unlawful employment practices against Plaintiffs because of their race by failing to represent them after complaints of discrimination were made against Defendant Employer, failing to initiate and pursue effective corrective action to end the discrimination, and denying job referrals. 39. Plaintiffs aver that the reason for this disparate treatment by Defendant Employer and Defendant Local 17 was because of their race and Ms. Alexander’s gender, which is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.
COUNT II - 42 U.S.C. §1981 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate as if herein plead verbatim, paragraphs one (1) through thirty-nine (39).
10

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 11 of 15
41. Defendant Employer and Defendant Unions are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 for refusing to contract with the Plaintiffs because of their race. Defendant Employer and Defendant Unions also failed to grant the Plaintiffs the same benefits and privileges to contract with them as they extended to White employees and members. Finally, Defendant Employer and Defendant Unions retaliated against the Plaintiffs for exercising their rights under Title VII and Section 1981. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages.
COUNT III- 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) 42. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate as if herein plead verbatim, paragraphs one (1) through forty-one (41). 43. Defendant Employer and Defendant Unions are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) by conspiring to discriminate against the Plaintiffs because of their race, thereby depriving them of their Equal Protection rights and their rights under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the United States Constitution. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Therefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer and its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates against employees because of their race, sex, or opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII;
11

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 12 of 15
B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Unions and their respective officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates against employees because of their race or opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII;
C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African American employees, female employees, and employees who oppose practices made unlawful by Title VII, and which eradicate the effects of Defendant Employer’s unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 9 through 27 above;
D. Order Defendant Unions to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African American employees and employees who oppose practices made unlawful by Title VII, and which eradicate the effects of Defendant Unions’ unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 28 through 32 above;
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place reinstatement;
F. Order Defendant Unions to make whole Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendants’ unlawful employment
12

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 13 of 15
practices; G. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander,
Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Order Defendant Unions to make whole Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, in amounts to be determined at trial;
I. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing compensation for nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, including emotional and psychological pain and suffering, in amounts to be determined at trial;
J. Order Defendant Unions to make whole Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins by providing compensation for nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, including emotional and psychological pain and suffering, in amounts to be determined at trial;
K. Order Defendant Employer to pay Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct, in amounts to be determined at trial;
L. Order Defendant Unions to pay Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins punitive damages for its
13

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 14 of 15
malicious and/or reckless conduct, in amounts to be determined at trial; M. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest; and N. Award the Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and expenses and their other costs of this
action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, EVANS & PETREE PC

s/ Michael R. Marshall Michael R. Marshall #15225 Caren B. Nichol #16093 1000 Ridgeway Loop Road Suite 200 Memphis, Tennessee 38120 Phone: (901) 525-6781 mmarshall@evanspetree.com

s/ Kevin H. Sharp

Kevin H. Sharp

#16287

Drescher & Sharp, P.C.

1720 West End Ave.

Suite 300

Nashville, Tennessee 37203

Phone: (615) 425-7111

ksharp@dsattorneys.com

14

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 41 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 15 of 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon:

Carson L. Owen, EEOC 1407 Union Ave, Ste. 621 Memphis, Tennessee 38104

David A. Velander, Esq. 105 South Sherrin Ave. Louisville, KY 40207

Deborah Godwin, Esq. Timothy P. Taylor, Esq. Morgan Keegan Tower 50 N. Front Street Suite 800 Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Craig M. Beard, Esq.
88 Union Ave. 14th Floor
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Nicholas R. Femia 4748 Wisconsin Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016

via CM/ECF, July 12, 2006.

s/Michael R. Marshall

15

 
 Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

DONNELL ADDISON, et al.,

Intervening Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 05-2717 B

TRI-STATE PLUMBING, HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS, INC.; UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS AND SPRINKLERFITTERS, PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 17; and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,

Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT TRI-STATE PLUMBING, HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS, INC.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), brought the
instant action against Defendants Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors,
Inc. (“Tri-State”) and United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters & Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers
Local Union No. 17 (“Local 17”) on behalf of certain individuals who were employed by Tri-
State and members of Local 17, arising out of allegations that the Defendants violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On December 2, 2005, several former Tri-State employees,

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 2 of 10
Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, and Fred Wiggins, filed a motion to intervene, which the Court granted on January 6, 2006. Thereafter, the intervening plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, naming United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (“UA”) as a Defendant. Before the Court is TriState’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The EEOC has responded, and this motion is appropriate for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND According to the complaint, Tri-State discriminated against several of its employees on the basis of sex and race. (Compl.¶¶ 10-27.) Specifically, certain “African American employees were subjected to racially derogatory comments, racially derogatory graffiti, and other unwelcome conduct based on race . . . .” (Compl. ¶11.) They were also assigned less desirable jobs than similarly situated white employees and denied the opportunity to work overtime. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16.) The complaint also contends that a female employee was similarly denied overtime work on the basis of her sex. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Tri-State subsequently fired several employees, either on the basis of race, or because they complained about discriminatory treatment. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20-21.) After investigating the charges of discrimination by several former Tri-State employees, the EEOC found that there was reasonable cause to believe that they had been unlawfully discriminated against. (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) The EEOC filed the complaint in this case on September 29, 2005, after determining that its attempt at
2

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 3 of 10
conciliation with Tri-State had failed. (Id. at 3.) Tri-State argues that the complaint must be dismissed because the EEOC’s attempt at conciliation was not in good faith. (Def.’s Memo. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 2.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW Tri-State asks the Court to dismiss the complaint either pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of a lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Rule requires the Court to “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all of the complaint’s factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle relief.” Grindstaff v. Green, 133 F.3d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1998). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion shall be converted into a motion for summary judgment when materials outside the pleading are presented to and accepted by the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (“If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided by Rule 56 . . . .”) (emphasis added). In this case, Tri-State supports its motion with an affidavit by its counsel and exhibits from the EEOC’s files. In addition, the EEOC has attached to its response to the motion several affidavits and exhibits in support. Because the Court will consider these materials, it shall treat Tri-State’s motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Rule 56 (c) provides that a judgment . . . shall be rendered forthwith 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.
3

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 4 of 10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharms., Inc., 862 F.2d 597, 601 (6th Cir. 1988). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). When the motion is supported by documentary proof such as depositions and affidavits, the nonmoving party may not rest on his pleadings but, rather, must present some “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. It is not sufficient “simply [to] show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586. These facts must be more than a scintilla of evidence and must meet the standard of whether a reasonable juror could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the nonmoving party is entitled to a verdict. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Summary judgment must be entered “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, 477 U.S. at 322. In this Circuit, “this requires the nonmoving party to ‘put up or shut up’ [on] the critical issues of [his] asserted causes of action.” Lord v. Saratoga Capital, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 840, 847 (W.D. Tenn. 1995) (citing Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1478 (6th Cir. 1989)). Finally, the “judge may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 379 (6th Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
Before the EEOC may bring a Title VII action against an employer, it has a statutory duty to investigate the charge of discrimination and, if there is reasonable cause to believe the charge, it must “make a good faith effort to conciliate the claim.” EEOC v. Keco Indus., 748 F.2d 1097, 1102 (6th Cir. 1984); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (“If within thirty days after a charge is filed with the Commission . . . the Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a civil action
4

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 5 of 10
against any respondent . . . .”). For the conciliation effort to be considered in good faith, the EEOC need only make a “sincere and reasonable effort” by providing the employer with “an adequate opportunity to respond to all charges and negotiate possible settlements.” EEOC v. Spectrum Health Worth Home Care, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-446, 2006 WL 519779, at *6 (W.D. Mich. March 2, 2006) (citations and internal quotations omitted). The EEOC “is under no duty to attempt further conciliation” if the employer rejects its offer. Keco Indus, 748 F.2d at 1101-02. The “form and substance” of conciliations lies within the discretion of the EEOC and is beyond judicial review. Id. at 1102. District courts “should only determine whether the EEOC made an attempt at conciliation.” Id. at 1102.
In support of its motion, Tri-State cites EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (11th Cir. 2003), wherein the Eleventh Circuit held that the EEOC failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of conciliation when the agency took three years to investigate a charge and then provided the employer with only twelve days to accept, reject or provide a counter-offer to its proposed conciliation agreement. Furthermore, in Asplundh, the EEOC failed to identify any legal theory on which the employer could be held liable, when the discriminatory conduct was committed not by one of its own employees, but a city employee. Id. at 1259. Thus, the court found that the EEOC’s conduct “‘smack[ed] more of coercion than of conciliation’” and condemned the agency’s all-or-nothing approach. Id. at 1260 (quoting EEOC v. Pet, Inc., Funsten Nut Div., 612 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir. 1980)). Tri-State also relies on EEOC v. One Bratenhal Place Condo. Assoc., 644 F. Supp. 218, 219-21 (N.D. Ohio 1986), wherein the court concluded that the EEOC failed to make a good faith effort to conciliate the claim when only one telephone conversation took place between the parties before the EEOC determined that its effort to settle the claim was unsuccessful, despite the fact that the employer allegedly expressed an interest in meeting and negotiating further. The court determined that this single discussion did not provide the employer with “‘an adequate opportunity to respond to all charges and negotiate proper settlements.’” Id. at 221 (quoting
5

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 6 of 10
Marshall v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 78 F.R.D. 97, 103 (D. Conn. 1978)). In making that determination, the court declined to consider evidence that the employer expressed no interest in negotiating a settlement during the investigation of the charges, because “the conciliation effort ‘. . . in theory, follows an investigation and a finding of reasonable cause.’” Id. at 221 (quoting EEOC v. Dayton Tire & Rubber Co., 573 F. Supp. 782, 784 n.3 (1983)) (emphasis in the original).
In this case, it is undisputed that on July 29, 2006, the EEOC sent the Defendant several proposed conciliation agreements and letters inviting it to engage in conciliation discussions to resolve the charges of discrimination. (Attach. to Def.’s Memo in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 49 & 52; Pl.’s Resp. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B to Bonner Aff.) The EEOC requested that Tri-State sign and return the agreements by August 12, 2005, if they met with the employer’s approval. On August 11, 2005, Tri-State’s attorney called the EEOC and notified it that his client was interested in resolving the charges through conciliation, but that he had some concerns that he would communicate in writing. (Attach. to Def.’s Memo in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 6.) On August 19, 2005, Tri-State sent the Plaintiff a letter that challenged the basis for the EEOC’s determination that its employees were the subject of discrimination. (Id. at 61-62 (stating, for example that there was “absolutely no proof” that racially derogatory graffiti at the work was put there by anyone connected with Tri-State or that African American employees were assigned less desirable jobs).) The correspondence concluded with a request that the EEOC reconsider its findings, but stated that if it did not, the Defendant would be willing to attempt conciliation if provided with the basis for the EEOC’s calculation of damages and attorney’s fees. (Id. at 62.) On August 25, 2005, the EEOC responded with a letter in which it refused to reconsider its findings. (Id. at 63.) It also expressed confusion at Tri-State’s request for more information about its damages calculation and asked whether Tri-State was saying that it would be “willing to pay back
6

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 7 of 10
pay, compensatory damages, and attorney fees if the supporting information [it] requested is provided and the [EEOC] and [Tri-State] are able to agree on the appropriate amounts of back pay, compensatory damages, and attorney fees?” (Id.) The EEOC requested a response by August 30, 2005. (Id. at 64.) The Defendant answered in a curt letter dated August 31, 2005, stating that it was “unreasonable for the [EEOC] to simply state numbers . . . with no apparent rational basis and expect [Tri-State] to agree.” (Id. at 65.) Further, the employer stressed that they were “ not saying at this point that [Tri-State] agrees to pay the amounts suggested by the [EEOC] or even that [TriState] is willing to pay any amounts . . . .” (Id.) Last, the Defendant suggested that if it were provided with the “requested information,” it would “make a prompt decision as to whether to continue conciliation efforts . . . .” (Id.) After receiving this letter, the EEOC called Tri-State on September 2, 2005, to declare that the conciliation process had failed. (Id. at 66.)
Drawing all inferences in a light most favorable to the EEOC, the Court concludes that the correspondence between the parties reveals that the EEOC provided Tri-State with an adequate opportunity to respond to the charges and negotiate a possible settlement, therefore fulfilling its obligation under Title VII to conciliate in good faith before filing suit. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587. Unlike in Asplundh, the EEOC did not adopt an all-or-nothing approach, as it extended its deadline for accepting the agreements in order to allow the Defendant to voice concerns. See Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d at 1259-60. And in contrast to One Bratenhal, the Plaintiff attempted to address those concerns in its August 25, 2005, letter, when it reaffirmed its findings and asked Tri-State to clarify whether it would be willing to pay back pay, compensatory damages, and attorney fees, if the basis for those damages was established and if the parties could reach agreement on the amounts. See One Bratenhal Place Condo. Assoc., 644 F. Supp. at 219-21.
7

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 8 of 10
Tri-State mischaracterizes this question as a request for “a commitment to pay the claimed damages if support for those damages were provided,” although the EEOC was clearly asking whether the Defendant was willing to any pay damages at all. (Def.’s Memo in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 9.) It was not unreasonable for the EEOC to interpret Tri-State’s August 31, 2005, response, reprimanding it for simply expecting Tri-State to agree to its calculations and indicating that it would unlikely agree to pay anything, as a rejection of its offer and to terminate conciliation. See Spectrum Health Worth Home Care Inc., 2006 WL 519779, at *6 (“In considering whether the EEOC has fulfilled its duty to conciliate, courts often note that because conciliation requires at least two parties, one party’s conciliation efforts should be evaluated with an eye to the conduct of the other party.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Thus, the EEOC fulfilled its duty to make an attempt at conciliation. See Keco Indus, 748 F.2d at 1101-02.
The Defendant contends that the fact that no meetings took place between the parties proves that the EEOC was unresponsive and unreasonable. (Def.’s Memo. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 12.) However, Tri-State did not request a meeting either in its August 19, 2005, or in its August 31, 2005, letter to the EEOC. (See Attach. to Def.’s Memo in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 61-62, 65.) The Defendant claims that the EEOC’s bad faith is further reflected in the fact that the conciliation process lasted only a month, making it “one of the shortest on record.” (Def.’s Memo. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 12.) Yet, another district court in this Circuit has found nothing wrong with a conciliation period that lasted only one month. See EEOC v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., No. 1:98CV2839, 1999 WL 4201166 (N.D. Ohio May 12, 1999).
Tri-State also asserts that the Plaintiff acted in bad faith because it failed to explain the basis of the charges of discrimination. (Def.’s Memo in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 13.) In Asplundh,
8

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 9 of 10
the Eleventh Circuit held that for the EEOC’s effort at conciliation to be considered reasonable, the basis for the EEOC’s charges have to be explained to the employer. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d at 1260. However, Tri-State’s August 19, 2005, letter demonstrates that it understood the reasoning for the EEOC’s charges against it, as it refutes them in detail.1 Last, the employer asserts that the EEOC conspired with the intervening plaintiffs’ counsel to derail the conciliation process. Tri-State’s strongest evidence is a July 19, 2004 entry in the EEOC’s ADR Mediation Log, which notes that the charging parties’ attorney “advised not to mediate.” (Attach. to Def.’s Memo in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 4.) However, that notation is contradicted by an August 8, 2005, letter sent from the charging parties’ attorney to the EEOC in which the attorney expresses his hope that “conciliation in this matter is successful.” (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D to Bonner Aff.) Furthermore, there is no evidence that the EEOC followed the attorney’s direction not to mediate. Thus, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the Court cannot conclude that the EEOC acted in bad faith by conspiring with the charging parties’ attorney to prevent a conciliation. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587.
For the reasons articulated herein, the Court finds that the EEOC fulfilled its obligation under Title VII to conciliate in good faith before filing suit and therefore DENIES Tri-State’s motion for summary judgment.2
1 The Defendant also cites EEOC v. Sara Lee Corp, 923 F. Supp. 994, 1000 (W.D. Mich. 1995) for the proposition that the EEOC must discuss the merits of individual cases with the employer before it seeks retrospective relief, such as back pay. (Def.’s Memo in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 13.) However, that case involved the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Defendant has presented no authority for a similar application of this rule to cases under Title VII.
2 Because the Court finds that the EEOC made a good faith effort to conciliate the claim, it also concludes that the Defendant’s request for relief pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal
9

Case 2:05-cv-02717-JDB-tmp Document 70 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 10 of 10 IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of August, 2007. s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is without merit. 10

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning..., Not Reported in...

2007 WL 649088 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and
Donnell Addison, et. al., Intervening Plaintiffs, v.
TRI-STATE PLUMBING, HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS, INC.; United
Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17; and
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Defendants.
No. 05-2717-B. | Feb. 27, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Carson L. Owen, Faye A. Williams, Gwendolyn Young Reams, James Lee, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff.
Kevin Hunter Sharp, Drescher & Sharp, P.C., Nashville, TN, Michael R. Marshall, Evans & Petree, P.A., Memphis, TN, for Intervenor Plaintiffs.
Craig M. Beard, Gotten Wilson Savory & Beard, PLLC, Memphis, TN, David A. Velander, Louisville, KY, Deborah A. Godwin, Timothy P. Taylor, Godwin Morris Laurenzi & Bloomfield, P.C., Memphis, TN, Nicholas R. Femia, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO
J. DANIEL BREEN, United States District Judge.
*1 The Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), brought the instant action against Defendants Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc. (“Tri-State”) and United

Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters & Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17 (“Local 17”) on behalf of certain individuals who were employed by Tri-State and members of Local 17, arising out of allegations that the Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On December 2, 2005, Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, and Fred Wiggings, (“IPs”), filed a motion to intervene, which the Court granted on January 6, 2006. Thereafter, the IPs filed an amended complaint, naming United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (“UA”) as a Defendant. Before the Court is UA’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The IPs have responded, UA has replied, and this motion is now appropriate for disposition.

The IPs have alleged in their amended complaint that the Defendants “subjected African American employees and union members to unlawful discrimination because of their race and to unlawful retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII....” (Am. Compl. at 2). They set forth the following facts relevant to their claims against UA. The IPs were employed by Tri-State and were members of Local 17 when they filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against UA and Local 17. (Am.Compl.¶ 15). Although the IPs contend UA “was aware of said Charges of Discrimination” based on its working relationship with Local 17, they did not name UA in their filing with the EEOC. (Id.). With regard to UA’s liability, the IPs contend that it failed to “sufficiently control[ ] the operations of Local 17 ... and failed to prevent and/or protect Plaintiffs from the discriminatory conduct....” (Am.Compl.¶ 29). The IPs further contend that UA engaged in a conspiracy to allow non-minority union members who were from other areas of the country to “work through Local 17 despite the fact that the Intervening Plaintiffs were told that there was no work for them.” (Id.). Based on the foregoing allegations, the IPs assert against UA violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3). However, the amended complaint does not include a claim against this Defendant for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.1 (Am.Compl.¶¶ 36-39).

1

In its motion to dismiss, UA states,

While Count I of the amended complaint, the 42

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII) claim, is not

drafted to include the UA, this motion will address

Title VII because such a claim was brought against

the UA in the original Complaint, was argued in

the Intervenors’ Opposition to the UA’s first

motion to dismiss, and appears to be referenced in

paragraphs 15, 28, and 32 of the amended

complaint.

(Def.’s Mot to Dismiss at 3 n. 1). UA thereafter

1

E.E.O.C. v. Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning..., Not Reported in...

argues that if the IPs’ amended complaint is construed to assert a cause of action against it under Title VII, it must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies as the IPs did not file a charge of discrimination against UA with the EEOC. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The Court finds that the amended complaint, as drafted, fails to state a cause of action against UA under Title VII. In this regard, the Court notes that the amended complaint, which superseded the original complaint, specifically names UA in claims under sections 1981 and 1985(3) but fails to identify UA as violating section 2000e. See, e.g., 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure Civil 2d, § 1476, at 556-58 (“A pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies and remains in effect throughout the action.... Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case....”). In making this determination, the Court further observes that the IPs do not contend in their response to UA’s motion to dismiss that the amended complaint states a cause of action against UA for violating section 2000e.

Pls.’ Resp. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot to Dismiss at 4). The IPs further argue that under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, their amended complaint contains sufficient allegations as to an agency relationship to withstand dismissal.
The two statutes at issue are, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which provides,
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other[,]
and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), which provides,

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of a lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Rule requires the Court to “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all of the complaint’s factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle relief.” Grindstaff v. Green, 133 F.3d 416, 421 (6th Cir.1998). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). However, “[t]o avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations with respect to all the material elements of the claim.” Wittstock v. Mark A. Van Sile, Inc., 330 F.3d 899, 902 (6th Cir.2003).
ANALYSIS
*2 In its motion to dismiss, UA contends that the IPs have pled insufficient facts to establish an agency relationship through which UA could be held liable for the actions of Local 17. In response, the IPs assert that “whether [UA] exerted sufficient control over the Local is a fact issue, and must be developed through discovery.” (Intervening

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire ... for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws[,] ... the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
The violation of these laws goes to the heart of the claim against Local 17 but the IPs must present an appropriate accusation tying UA to the actions of the Local. In Carbon Fuel Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, the United States Supreme Court held that pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, an international union may only be held liable for the actions of one of its local unions under traditional common-law agency principles such as the doctrine of respondeat superior. 444 U.S. 212, 216-17, 100 S.Ct. 410, 413-14 (1979). In that same context, the Sixth Circuit has recognized that
[c]ommon law agency theories of vicarious liability govern the liability of international labor organizations for the acts of their local unions that violate Title VII
2

E.E.O.C. v. Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning..., Not Reported in...

and § 1981. At common law, a principal may be held liable for the intentional torts of its agent if the agent’s conduct is within the scope of his agency and if, with the knowledge of the conditions, the principal intends the conduct or its consequences. In other words, in a case such as this, a plaintiff must adduce specific evidence that the international instigated, supported, ratified, or encouraged those actions, or that what was done was done by their agents in accordance with their fundamental agreement of association. Furthermore, where an agency relationship exists, international unions are not only vicariously liable, they have an affirmative duty to oppose the local’s discriminatory conduct. Thus, as a general proposition international labor unions must bear a heavy responsibility in giving effect to the remedial provisions of both Title VII and § 1981.
*3 Alexander v. Local 496, Laborers’ Int’l. Union of N. Am., 177 F.3d 394, 409 (6th Cir.1999) (internal citations, quotations, and footnote omitted).
UA has relied on Carbon Fuel Co. in support of its position that the IPs have failed to sufficiently allege an agency relationship between UA and Local 17. UA also cites to various federal cases it contends support its argument for dismissal. See, e.g., Borowiec v. Local 1570, 889 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir.1989) (“A plaintiff seeking to place liability on an international for a local’s allegedly illegal conduct must further show that the local acted as the international’s agent or that the international independently participated in the unlawful conduct.”); Shimman v. Frank, 625 F.2d 80, 97 (6th Cir.1980) ( “The acts of the local and its agents cannot automatically be imputed to the International.”), overruled on other grounds by, Shimman v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226 (6th Cir.1984). However, in none of the authorities cited by the Defendant was the court considering a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).2 See Borowiec, 889 F.2d at 28 (1st Cir.1989) (summary judgment); Rodonich v. House Wreckers Union, Local 95 of Laborers’ Int’l Union, 817 F.2d 967 (2d Cir.1987) (jury trial); Shimman, 625 F.2d at 80 (bench trial); Walters v. Int’l Ass’n of Plumbers & Steamfitters, 323 F.2d 578 (6th Cir.1963) (bench trial); and Borg-Warner Corp. v. United Ass’n of Journeyman & Apprentices of the Plumbers & Pipe Fitting Indus., 473

F.Supp. 896 (S.D.Fla.1979) (motion for summary judgment).

2

Although one case cited by the Defendant was before

the district court on a motion to dismiss, the court

converted it to one for summary judgment under Rule

56 as the parties submitted matters outside of the

pleadings. See Allied Mech. Servs. v. Local 337 of the

United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the

Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

4654 (W.D.Mich. March 13, 1999); see also

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (“If, on a motion asserting the

defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the

pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to

and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be

treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of

as provided in Rule 56....”).

Although UA is correct in its assertion that these cases stand for the general proposition that an agency relationship must be established in order to hold an international union liable, UA misapprehends the applicability of the decisions to the instant motion. Here, UA has moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Under that standard of review, the Court is constrained to consider the evidence “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all of the complaint’s factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle relief.” Grindstaff, 133 F.3d at 421. In contrast, a Rule 56 motion looks to whether “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,” thereby entitling “the moving party ... to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986); Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharms., Inc., 862 F.2d 597, 601 (6th Cir.1988).
In their Complaint, the IPs allege the following with regard to Defendant UA:
Upon information and/or belief, Defendant United Association, which sufficiently controlled the operations of Local 17, was aware of said [discriminatory] practices and failed to prevent and/or protect Plaintiffs from the discriminatory conduct in spite of its obligations under federal antidiscrimination laws and its own constitution. Upon information and/or belief, Defendant United Association
3

E.E.O.C. v. Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning..., Not Reported in...

was aware of the racial

demographics

of

the

Memphis-Shelby County area,

was aware of the

underrepresentation

of

African-American members in

Defendant Local 17, was aware

that some or all of Plaintiffs were

treated differently with respect to

apprenticeship training, and was

aware that African-American

union members and applicants

for membership were the victims

of disparate treatment at the

hands of Local 17 officers and/or

agents, yet demonstrated a

studied ambivalence toward the

illegal conduct. Local 17 and the

United Association allowed and

encouraged “traveling” members

from other locals to work

through Local 17 despite the fact

that the Intervening Plaintiffs

were told that there was no work

for them. These “traveling”

members were mostly

non-minorities.

Upon

information and belief, the

United Association knew of the

existence of travelers working

through Local 17 and that the

Intervening Plaintiffs, and those

similarly situated to them, were

unemployed. Consequently, and

in addition thereto, upon

information and/or belief, the

United Association encouraged,

ratified, authorized[,] conducted,

and/or

condoned

the

discriminatory course of conduct

of Local 17 by and through its

officers and/or agents.

*4 (Am.Compl.¶ 29).

In their amended complaint, the IPs allege that the Defendant knew of and approved the discriminatory conduct of Local 17. Moreover, they contend that UA conspired with Local 17 to bring in “travelers,” who were mainly non-minorities to work through Local 17. Based on the liberal notice pleading requirements, the Court finds that the IPs’ allegation that UA conspired with Local 17 to allow “travelers,” who were non-minorities, to work through Local 17, thereby taking the IPs’ jobs, constitutes a “direct or inferential allegation [ ]” sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Wittstock, 330 F.3d at 902. Thus, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

	  

4

 
 Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 1 of 19 PageID 804

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

DONNELL ADDISON, et al.,

)

)

Intervening Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

TRI-STATE PLUMBING, HEATING &

)

AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS, INC., )

)

and

)

)

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS, )

PIPEFITTERS, and SPRINKLERFITTERS, )

PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 17,

)

)

and

)

)

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN )

AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING )

AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

)

UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, )

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-2717 A/P

CONSENT DECREE Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) instituted this lawsuit on September 29, 2005, against Defendant Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc. (Tri-State), and Defendant United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17 (the Local Union) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ' 2000e, et seq. (Title VII). The

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 2 of 19 PageID 805
Commission's Complaint claims that Tri-State discriminated against eight charging parties and three additional alleged discriminatees by subjecting them to racial harassment, different terms and conditions of employment, denying them the opportunity to work overtime, all because of their race, and ending their employment in retaliation for their opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII. The Commission also claimed that TriState denied Karen Alexander, a female laborer, the opportunity to work overtime because of her sex, and laid off Levett Robertson, an African American laborer, because of his race while allowing similarly situated and less qualified Hispanic American laborers and White laborers to work.
The Commission's Complaint claims that the Local Union failed to represent the eight charging parties and four additional alleged discriminatees because of their race, denied them job referrals because of their race, and denied them job referrals in retaliation for opposing unlawful employment practices.
Donnel Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver and Frederick Wiggins (Intervenors) were allowed to intervene in this lawsuit on January 6, 2006. The Intervenors' Complaint added claims under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. '1981a, and 42 U.S.C. '1985 (3), and added the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (hereinafter "the International Union") as a defendant.
2

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 3 of 19 PageID 806
The Commission, the Intervenors, Tri-State, and the Local Union have all agreed to this Consent Decree to settle all of the claims involved in this lawsuit concerning Tri-State and the Local Union. The International Union is not a party to this Consent Decree and is in no way bound by its terms. All claims by the Intervenors concerning or against the International Union have been fully and completely released in separate documents which impose no financial or other obligations on the International Union.
The Court has reviewed the terms of this Decree in light of the applicable laws and regulations, and hereby approves this Decree. THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED:
I.NONADMISSIBLE CLAUSE In the event this proposed Consent Decree is not approved or does not become final, then it shall not be admissible in evidence in any subsequent proceeding in this action. Further, this Consent Decree shall not be admissible in any other action now pending or which may be filed in the future, except as to enforcement proceedings.
II.MODIFICATION This Consent Decree constitutes the complete and exclusive agreement between the parties with respect to the matters referred to herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this Consent Decree shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by both parties. No representations or inducements to compromise this action have been made, other than those recited or referenced in this Consent Decree.
3

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 4 of 19 PageID 807
III. JURISDICTION The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this lawsuit, and will retain jurisdiction over this Decree for purposes of enforcement and dispute resolution.
IV. DISCLAIMER Neither the negotiation of nor agreement to this Decree is an admission or acknowledgment by Tri-State or the Local Union that any of its employees, officers, directors, or agents have violated Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Tri-State and the Local Union specifically deny that they have violated Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1991. TSP and the Local Union enter into this Decree only for the purpose of avoiding the expense and risk of further litigation in this case.
V. DURATION OF DECREE This Decree will be binding on the Commission, the Intervenors, Tri-State, and the Local Union for three years after the date of its entry by the Court.
VI. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Tri-State, its supervisors, managers, officers, directors, agents, and successors are enjoined from discriminating against its employees because of their race. Tri-State, its supervisors, managers, officers, directors, agents, and successors are enjoined from retaliating against any of the claimants in this litigation or any other employees as a result of their participation in this litigation. The Local Union, its supervisors, managers, officers, directors, agents, and successors are enjoined from discriminating against its members because of their race.
4

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 5 of 19 PageID 808
The Local Union, its supervisors, managers, officers, directors, agents, and successors are enjoined from retaliating against any of the claimants in this litigation or any other members as a result of their participation in this litigation.
VII. INDIVIDUAL REMEDIES To resolve this lawsuit Tri-State and the Local Union will pay a total of $360,000 to the alleged discriminatees and Intervenors in this case, as directed by the Commission and counsel for the Intervenors. Each payment recipient shall be responsible for all taxes of any description due to any governmental agency as a result of the payment. Before payment is made to each of the alleged discriminatees, the release attached to this agreement as Attachment A will be signed by the alleged discriminatee and received by Tri-State and the Local Union. Before payment is made to each of the Intervenors, a release will be signed by the Intervenor and received by Tri-State and the Local Union. The content of the Intervenors' releases will be negotiated by counsel for the Intervenors, Tri-State, and the Local Union. At the time when payments are mailed to the Intervenors and the other alleged discriminatees, a copy of each check will be mailed at the same time to:
Carson L. Owen, Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Ave., Suite 901 Memphis, TN 38104 VIII.TRI-STATE=S POLICY PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION The Policy Prohibiting Discrimination which is attached to this Decree will be complied with by Tri-State. Within 30 days after receiving a copy of this Decree entered by
5

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 6 of 19 PageID 809
the Court, each Tri-State supervisory employee will be required to read and sign a copy of this policy, and will be given a copy of the policy. Within 20 days after this requirement has been complied with, Tri-State will submit a report to Carson Owen, at the address indicated above, confirming that this requirement has been complied with and including a copy of each signed policy statement. Thereafter, whenever a new supervisory employee is hired, he or she will be required to read and sign a copy of this policy, and will be given a copy of the policy.
IX. TRI-STATE=S TRAINING Within 90 days after receiving a copy of this Decree entered by the Court, Tri-State will provide mandatory training for all of its employees concerning the responsibility of all employees not to engage in unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII, and to report promptly any such discrimination they see or hear or hear about. The training will train TriState=s employees thoroughly on Tri-State=s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination. The training will be conducted by a trainer to be agreed upon by the Local Union and the Commission. The training will also address the responsibility of supervisors and managers to deal quickly, effectively, and fairly with any unlawful discrimination found to have occurred, and not to retaliate against employees for complaining about unlawful discrimination, complaining to the Local Union about discrimination, or filing charges with the Commission. As part of the training, each Tri-State employee will be required to read and sign a copy of Tri-State=s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, and will be given a copy of the policy.
6

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 7 of 19 PageID 810
X. THE LOCAL UNION=S POLICY PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION The Local Union=s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination which is attached to this Decree will be complied with by the Local Union. Within 30 days after receiving a copy of this Decree entered by the Court, each Local Union employee will be required to read and sign a copy of this policy, and will be given a copy of the policy.
XI. THE LOCAL UNION=S TRAINING Within 90 days after receiving a copy of this Decree entered by the Court, the Local Union will provide mandatory training for all of its managing employees concerning the responsibility of all employees not to engage in unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII, and to report promptly any such discrimination they see or hear or hear about. The training will train the Local Union=s employees thoroughly on the Local Union=s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination. The training will be conducted by a trainer to be agreed upon by the Local Union and the Commission. The training will also address the responsibility of the Local Union=s representatives to deal quickly, effectively, and fairly with any unlawful discrimination found to have occurred, and not to retaliate against its members for complaining to employers about unlawful discrimination, complaining to the Local Union about unlawful discrimination, or filing charges with the Commission. Within 20 days after the completion of this training, the Local Union will submit a report to Carson Owen, at the address indicated above, confirming that the training has
7

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 8 of 19 PageID 811
occurred. The report will include a copy of the training materials used by the trainer; and a copy of a roster of attendees at the training, which will include the typed name, the job title, and the signature of each person who attended the training.
XII. TRI-STATE'S REPORTING Reporting Concerning Training:
Within 20 days after Tri-State has been complied with part IX of this Decree, TriState will submit a report to Carson Owen, at the address indicated above, confirming that the training has occurred.
The report will include a copy of the training materials used by the trainer; and a copy of a roster of attendees at the training, which will include the typed or printed name, the job title, and the signature of each person who attended the training. Reporting Concerning Complaints About Discrimination:
Tri-State will submit a report to Carson L. Owen, at the address indicated above, six months after the entry of this Decree, and every six months thereafter during the duration of this Decree, concerning complaints received about discrimination.
Each report will describe all complaints received from employees concerning discrimination prohibited by Title VII, including the name, home address, and home telephone number of each employee who complained (which shall be the name, address and telephone number in Tri-State=s personnel file for such employee(s)), the nature of the complaint, what action, if any, was taken in response to the complaint, and if no action was taken an explanation of why no action was taken.
8

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 9 of 19 PageID 812
Reporting Concerning Hiring: Tri-State will submit a report to Carson L. Owen, at the address indicated above, six
months after the entry of this Decree, and every six months thereafter during the duration of this Decree, concerning hiring.
Each report will contain the name, race, job title, date of hire, and location (including full address) assigned for each person who was hired by Tri-State during the previous six months.
XIII. THE LOCAL UNION'S REPORTING Reporting Concerning Training:
Within 20 days after the Local Union has complied with part XI of this Decree, the Local Union will submit a report to Carson Owen, at the address indicated above, confirming compliance and including a copy of each signed policy statement. Thereafter, whenever a new employee is hired by the Local Union, he or she will be required to read and sign a copy of this policy, and will be given a copy of the policy. Reporting Concerning Complaints About Discrimination:
The Local Union will submit a report to Carson L. Owen, at the address indicated above, six months after the entry of this Decree, and every six months thereafter during the duration of this Decree, concerning complaints received about discrimination.
Each report will describe all complaints received from Local Union members concerning discrimination prohibited by Title VII, including the name, home address, and home telephone number of each employee who complained (based on the contact
9

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 10 of 19 PageID 813
information in the Local Union=s membership file), the nature of the complaint, what
action, if any, was taken in response to the complaint, and if no action was taken an explanation of why no action was taken. Reporting Concerning Hiring:
The Local Union will submit a report to Carson L. Owen, at the address indicated above, six months after the entry of this Decree, and every six months thereafter during the duration of this Decree, concerning hiring.
Each report will contain a copy of documents indicating the name, race, job title (journeyman or apprentice), date of placement on the out of work list, date of referral (if referred), employer referred to (if referred), and reason for the referral (such as "name called", etc., if referred) during the previous six months.
XIV. ATTORNEY=S FEES AND COSTS The Commission, the Intervenors, Tri-State, and the Local Union will each bear their own attorney=s fees and costs incurred in this lawsuit.
XV. FINAL RESOLUTION This Decree resolves all disputes and issues among the Commission, the Intervenors, Tri-State, and the Local Union concerning this lawsuit. The Commission, the Intervenors, Tri-State, and the Local Union, through the undersigned, respectfully apply for and consent to entry of this Consent Decree Order.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of November, 2008. 10

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 11 of 19 PageID 814

s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Consented to on behalf of the respective parties:

FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC:

FOR DEFENDANT TRI-STATE:

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

s/Nickey Shah, Sr. NICKEY SHAH, SR. President
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT TRI-STATE:
s/David A. Velander DAVID A. VELANDER

s/Faye A. Williams FAYE A. WILLIAMS Regional Attorney Tennessee Bar No. 011730

105 S. Sherrin Ave. Louisville, KY 40207-3720 Phone: 502-896-2301 Fax: 502-893-8706

s/Deidre Smith DEIDRE SMITH Supervisory Trial Attorney Tennessee Bar No. 018499
s/Carson L. Owen CARSON L. OWEN Senior Trial Attorney Tennessee Bar No. 009240
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1407 Union Ave., Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104 Phone: 901-544-0133 Fax: 901-544-0111

FOR DEFENDANT LOCAL UNION:
s/Frank Rodgers FRANK RODGERS Business Agent
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT LOCAL UNION:
s/Timothy Taylor TIMOTHY TAYLOR
GODWIN, MORRIS, LAURENZI BLOOMFIELD P.C. P.O. Box 3290 Memphis, TN 38173-0290 Phone: 901-528-1702 Fax: 901-528-0246

11

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 12 of 19 PageID 815

FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS:
s/Donnell Addison DONNELL ADDISON
s/Karen Alexander KAREN ALEXANDER
s/Eddie Anderson EDDIE ANDERSON
s/Keith Clark KEITH CLARK
s/Billy Herring BILLY HERRING
s/Roy Oliver ROY OLIVER
s/Frederick Wiggins FREDERICK WIGGINS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS:
s/Michael R. Marshall MICHAEL R. MARSHALL
EVANS & PETREE PC 1000 Ridgeway Loop Rd., Suite 200 Memphis, TN 38120 Phone: 901-521-4563 Fax: 901-521-0681

s/Kevin Sharp KEVIN SHARP
DRESCHER & SHARP, P.C. 1720 West End Ave., Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-425-7111 Fax: 615-425-7110

12

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 13 of 19 PageID 816

Attachment A

RELEASE

In consideration for $

paid to me by United Association of Plumbers,

Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17 ("Local 17"), in connection

with the resolution of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (AEEOC@), et al. v. Tri-

State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., and United Association of

Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17, et al., Civil Action

No. 05-2717, I, Tommy Wells, residing at

(address) , hereby release and

waive my right to recover for all claims made in that lawsuit concerning me. In that lawsuit

EEOC claimed that Local 17 discriminated against me and other African American

employees, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by denying

us job referrals because of our race. I understand that Local 17 affirmatively denies that

any of its employees, officers, directors, or agents have violated Title VII or the Civil Rights

Act of 1991.

I understand that Local 17 will issue an IRS Form 1099 for the monetary damages

paid to me, and that I will be responsible for all taxes of any description due to any

governmental agency as a result of the payment.

Date:

Signature:

Subscribed and sworn to before me this
Notary Public My commission expires

day of .

, 2008.

13

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 14 of 19 PageID 817

RELEASE

In consideration for $

paid to me by United Association of Plumbers,

Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17 ("Local 17"), in connection

with the resolution of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (AEEOC@), et al. v. Tri-

State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., and United Association of

Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17, et al., Civil Action

No. 05-2717, I, Danny Davis, residing at

(address) , hereby release and

waive my right to recover for all claims made in that lawsuit concerning me. In that lawsuit

EEOC claimed that Local 17 discriminated against me and other African American

employees, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (ATitle VII@)

by denying us job referrals because of our race, and by denying me job referrals in

retaliation for my opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII. I understand that Local

17 affirmatively denies that any of its employees, officers, directors, or agents have violated

Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

I understand that Local 17 will issue an IRS Form 1099 for the monetary damages

paid to me, and that I will be responsible for all taxes of any description due to any

governmental agency as a result of the payment.

Date:

Signature:

Subscribed and sworn to before me this
Notary Public My commission expires

day of .

, 2008.

14

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 15 of 19 PageID 818

RELEASE

Page 1 of 2

In consideration for $

paid to me by Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air

Conditioning Contractors, Inc. (ATri-State@), and United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters,

and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17 ("Local 17"), in connection with the

resolution of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (AEEOC@), et al. v. Tri-State

Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., and United Association of

Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17, et al., Civil Action

No. 05-2717, I, Darrell Moore, residing at

(address) , hereby release and

waive my right to recover for all claims made in that lawsuit. In that lawsuit EEOC claimed

that Tri-State discriminated against me and other African American employees, in violation

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (ATitle VII@) by subjecting us to

racial harassment, by subjecting us to different terms and conditions of employment at the

FedEx Forum work site because of our race, by assigning us to less desirable job tasks

because of our race, by denying us the opportunity to work overtime at the FedEx Forum

work site because of our race, and by ending our employment in retaliation for our

opposition to practices made unlawful by Title VII. In that lawsuit EEOC also claimed that

Local 17 discriminated against me and other African American employees, in violation of

Title VII, by failing to represent us because of our race. I understand that Tri-State and

Local 17 affirmatively deny that any of their employees, officers, directors, or agents have

violated Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

15

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 16 of 19 PageID 819

I understand that Tri-State and Local 17 will each issue an IRS Form 1099 for the monetary damages paid to me, and that I will be responsible for all taxes of any description due to any governmental agency as a result of the payment.
Page 2 of 2

Date:

Signature:

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

day of

, 2008.

Notary Public

My commission expires

.

16

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 17 of 19 PageID 820

RELEASE

Page 1 of 2

In consideration for $

paid to me by Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air

Conditioning Contractors, Inc. (ATri-State@), and United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters,

and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17 ("Local 17"), in connection with the

resolution of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (AEEOC@), et al. v. Tri-State

Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., and United Association of

Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers Local Union No. 17, et al., Civil Action

No. 05-2717, I, Kevin Clark, residing at

(address) , hereby release and waive

my right to recover for all claims made in that lawsuit. In that lawsuit EEOC claimed that

Tri-State discriminated against me and other African American employees, in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (ATitle VII@) by subjecting us to racial

harassment, by subjecting us to different terms and conditions of employment at the FedEx

Forum work site because of our race, by assigning us to less desirable job tasks because

of our race, by denying us the opportunity to work overtime at the FedEx Forum work site

because of our race, and by ending our employment in retaliation for our opposition to

practices made unlawful by Title VII. In that lawsuit EEOC also claimed that Local 17

discriminated against me and other African American employees, in violation of Title VII, by

failing to represent us because of our race. I understand that Tri-State and Local 17

affirmatively deny that any of their employees, officers, directors, or agents have violated

Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

17

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 18 of 19 PageID 821

I understand that Tri-State and Local 17 will each issue an IRS Form 1099 for the monetary damages paid to me, and that I will be responsible for all taxes of any description due to any governmental agency as a result of the payment.
Page 2 of 2

Date:

Signature:

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

day of

, 2008.

Notary Public

My commission expires

.

18

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 87 Filed 11/05/08 Page 19 of 19 PageID 822

RELEASE

In consideration for $

in monetary damages paid to me by Tri-State Plumbing,

Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc. (“Tri-State”) in connection with the resolution of

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), et al. v. Tri-State Plumbing, Heating & Air

Conditioning Contractors, Inc., and United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Sprinklerfitters,

Plumbers Local Union No. 17, et al., Civil Action No. 05-2717, I, Levett Robertson, residing at

(address)

, hereby release and waive my right to recover for all claims made in

that lawsuit concerning me. In that lawsuit EEOC claimed that Tri-State discriminated against me,

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by ending my employment

because of my race while allowing similarly situated and less qualified Hispanic American laborers

and White laborers to work.

I understand that Tri-State will issue an IRS Form 1099 for the monetary damages paid to

me, and that I will be responsible for all taxes of any description due to any governmental agency as

a result of the payment.

Date:

Signature:

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

day of

, 2008.

Notary Public

My commission expires

.

19

 
 Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 119 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________

KENDRICK HUNT,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

No. 05-2717-STA-tmp

)

TRI-STATE PLUMBING, HEATING &

)

AIR CONDITIONING

)

CONTRACTORS, INC.; UNITED

)

ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS,

)

PIPEFITTERS and SPRINKLER FITTERS, )

PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 17; and )

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF

)

JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF )

THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING

)

INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND )

CANADA,

)

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL ______________________________________________________________________________

On November 15, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff Kendrick Hunt to show cause as to

why his claims against Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Defendants

filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (D.E. # 115) on October

29, 2010. According to Defendants, Plaintiff failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition

for the second time. Therefore, Defendants seek dismissal as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute his case. Under the Local Rules, Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss

was due on or before November 15, 2010. On November 9, 2010, a previous order from the

1

Case 2:05-cv-02717-STA-tmp Document 119 Filed 12/02/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1016
Court was returned as undeliverable mail (D.E. # 116), even though the order was sent to Plaintiff’s address of record.
The Court’s Show Cause Order gave Plaintiff until December 1, 2010, to demonstrate why the Court should not grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond would result in the dismissal of his case. On November 30, 2010, the Court’s Show Cause Order was returned as undeliverable mail (D.E. # 118). All parties and their attorneys are required to maintain current contact information with the Court. Plaintiff has failed to do so and failed to otherwise appear and prosecute his case, as evidenced by his failure to respond to Defendants’ motion to compel (D.E. # 112) and attend two properly noticed depositions. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: December 2, 2010
2

 
 Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 1 of 14
U.S. District Court Western District of Tennessee (Memphis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05−cv−02717−STA−tmp

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc. et al Assigned to: Judge S. Thomas Anderson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/29/2005 Date Terminated: 12/02/2010 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission TERMINATED: 11/05/2008

represented by Carson L. Owen EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 621 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0133 Fax: 901−544−0111 Email: carson.owen@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Faye A. Williams EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0088 Email: faye.williams@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0136 TERMINATED: 03/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Lee EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0136 TERMINATED: 03/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katharine W. Kores

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 2 of 14
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0151 Email: katharine.kores@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/28/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adele Rapport EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION− Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Ste. 901 Memphis, TN 38104 901−544−0113 TERMINATED: 07/31/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Donnell Addison TERMINATED: 11/05/2008
Intervenor Plaintiff Karen Alexander TERMINATED: 11/05/2008
Intervenor Plaintiff Eddie Anderson TERMINATED: 11/05/2008

represented by Kevin Hunter Sharp DRESCHER & SHARP, P.C. 1720 West End Avenue Ste. 300 Nashville, TN 37203 615−425−7113 Email: ksharp@dsattorneys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael R. Marshall EVANS PETREE, PC 1000 Ridgeway Loop Road Ste. 200 Memphis, TN 38120 901−525−6781 Fax: 901−374−7495 Email: mmarshall@evanspetree.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin Hunter Sharp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael R. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin Hunter Sharp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 3 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael R. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Keith Clark TERMINATED: 11/05/2008

represented by Kevin Hunter Sharp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael R. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Billy Herring TERMINATED: 11/05/2008

represented by Kevin Hunter Sharp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael R. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Kendrick Hunt

represented by Kendrick Hunt 2777 Treasure Island East Memphis, TN 38115 PRO SE

Kevin Hunter Sharp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael R. Marshall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Roy Oliver TERMINATED: 11/05/2008

represented by Kevin Hunter Sharp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael R. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Fred Wiggins TERMINATED: 11/05/2008

represented by Kevin Hunter Sharp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 4 of 14
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael R. Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc.
Defendant United Association Of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklefitters, Plumber's Local Union No. 17
Defendant United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States

represented by Craig M. Beard GOTTEN WILSON SAVORY & BEARD, PLLC 88 Union Ave. 14th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 901−523−1110 Fax: 901−523−1139 Email: cmbgwsb@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Velander 105 South Sherrin Ave. Louisville, KY 40207 502−896−2301 Fax: 502−893−8706 Email: VelanderJD@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah E. Godwin GODWIN MORRIS LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C. Morgan Keegan Tower 50 N. Front St. Ste. 800 Memphis, TN 38103 901−528−1702 Fax: 901−528−0246 Email: dgodwin@gmlblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Taylor GODWIN MORRIS LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C. Morgan Keegan Tower 50 N. Front St. Ste. 800 Memphis, TN 38103 901−528−1702 Fax: 901−528−0246 Email: ttaylor@gmlblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicholas R Femia O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP 4748 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 5 of 14

and Canada, AFL−CIO

Washington, DC 20016 202−362−0041 Email: nfemia@odonoghuelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Taylor GODWIN MORRIS LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C. 50 N. Front St. Ste. 800 Memphis, TN 38103 901−528−1702 Fax: 901−528−0246 Email: ttaylor@gmlblaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2005 12/01/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005 12/05/2005 12/06/2005
12/08/2005 12/16/2005 12/21/2005 12/23/2005
12/28/2005
12/28/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT against all defendants , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(fsh, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 SETTING LETTER: Scheduling Conference set for 1/12/2006 10:15 AM before Tu M. Pham. (ehg, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
3 MOTION to Intervene w/attached Intervenors' Complaint by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (ehg, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
4 MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION to Intervene filed by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (ehg, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
5 ANSWER to Complaint by Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc..(ehg, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
6 ORDER OF REFERENCE: REFERRING 3 MOTION to Intervene filed by Eddie Anderson,, Donnell Addison,, Karen Alexander,, Keith Clark,, Billy Herring,, Kendrick Hunt,, Roy Oliver,, Fred Wiggins,..for determination.. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen. (ehg, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
7 ANSWER to Complaint by United Association Of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklefitters, Plumber's Local Union No. 17.(ehg, ) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
8 SETTING LETTER: Scheduling Conference set for 1/5/2006 10:15 AM before Tu M. Pham. (ehg, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
9 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (ehg, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial disclosures due 1/12/06. Amended Pleadings due by 3/6/2006. Discovery due by 1/5/2007. Joinder of Parties due by 3/6/2006. Initial Motions to dismiss due by 4/5/2006. Dispositive motions due 2/5/07. Case set for jury trial (3−4 wks). Pretrial order, pretrial conference and trial dates will be set by presiding judge. Parties are to engage in ADR prior to close of discovery. Parties have not consented to proceed before magistrate judge. Absent good cause shown, dates set by this order will not be modified or extended. Signed by Judge Tu M. Pham. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
11 SETTING LETTER: Jury Trial set for 5/21/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before J. Daniel Breen. Pretrial Conference set for 5/14/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before J. Daniel Breen. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due 5/7/07.(jae, ) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5/7/2007. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/29/2005)

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 6 of 14

01/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/08/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006
03/13/2006 03/14/2006
03/17/2006 03/21/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 04/07/2006

12 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Intervene . Signed by Judge Tu M. Pham on 1/6/06. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
13 Answer To Intervenors' Complaint ANSWER to Complaint by Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc..(Velander, David) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
14 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT Western division Donnell Addison, et al v. Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc. et al Intervenor's Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Previously "Filed" stamped Intervenor's Complaint)(Marshall, Michael) Modified on 3/9/2006 (ehg, ). (Entered: 03/08/2006)
15 ANSWER to Complaint of Intervenors by United Association Of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklefitters, Plumber's Local Union No. 17.(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
16 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Complaint by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. Responses due by 4/12/2006 (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
17 MEMORANDUM in Support re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Complaint filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished case# 2 Unpublished Case# 3 Unpublished Case# 4 Unpublished Case# 5 # 6 Unpublished Case# 7 Unpublished Case)(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
18 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 17 Memorandum in Support of Motion, Affidavit of Timothy Taylor by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
19 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 17 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO,, 16 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Complaint filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO,, 18 Affidavit in Support filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO, has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Documents filed separately..FYI: A memorandum, exhibit, or additional documents filed with your "motion" will be an attachment. Refer to the Attorney User Manuel. No corrective action necessary at this time. (ehg, ) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
20 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (proposed Order submitted) by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 03/21/06. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
22 MOTION to Substitute Attorney (Proposed Order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rapport, Adele) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
23 ORDER granting 22 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Adele Rapport for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Katherine W. Kores terminated. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 03/28/06.(Breen, J.) Modified on 3/29/2006 (ehg, ). (Entered: 03/28/2006)
24 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion to Dismiss by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss# 2 Order Granting Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss)(Marshall, Michael) (Entered: 04/07/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 7 of 14

04/10/2006 05/12/2006 05/12/2006
05/24/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006 06/05/2006 06/16/2006 06/16/2006
06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/16/2006

25 ORDER Granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Complaint; Response due by 5/12/2006. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 4/10/06. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Complaint filed by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant United Association's Motion to Dismiss# 2 Exhibit A to Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant United Association's Motion to Dismiss)(Marshall, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Complaint Motion in Opposition to Defendant United Association's Motion to Dismiss filed by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant United Association's Motion to Dismiss# 2 Exhibit A to Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant United Association's Motion to Dismiss)(Marshall, Michael) [NOTE to File: This document is a duplicate of document #26] Modified on 5/15/2006 (ehg, ). (Entered: 05/12/2006)
28 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Intervening Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (proposed Order submitted) by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Reply to Intervening Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss)(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
29 ORDER Granting 28 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendant United Association. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 5/24/06. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
30 REPLY to Response to Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Complaint filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
31 ORDER. Signed by Judge J.Daniel Breen on 06/05/06. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
32 [Duplicate; See filed Document #34] First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, and Certificate of Consult by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 First Amended Complaint)(Marshall, Michael) Modified on 6/19/2006 (ehg, ). (Entered: 06/16/2006)
33 [Duplicate; See Filed Document #34] AMENDED COMPLAINT against United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO, Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., United Association Of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklefitters, Plumber's Local Union No. 17, filed by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Marshall, Michael) Modified on 6/19/2006 (ehg, ). (Entered: 06/16/2006)
34 First MOTION to Amend/Correct the Compliant by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 First Amended Complaint# 2 Memorandum in support of Motion to Amend Complaint)(Marshall, Michael) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
35 AFFIDAVIT of Intent to Perform Discovery of Michael R. Marshall by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Affidavit of Intent to Perform Discovery# 2 Exhibit B to Affidavit of Intent to Perform Discovery)(Marshall, Michael) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
36 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. Amendment to 34 First MOTION to Amend/Correct the Compliant Order Emailed to Judge Breen.

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 8 of 14

06/19/2006
06/19/2006
06/19/2006
07/10/2006 07/12/2006
07/31/2006 07/31/2006 08/02/2006 08/11/2006 08/11/2006 08/17/2006 09/14/2006 09/14/2006

(Marshall, Michael) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
37 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 32 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, and Certificate of Consult filed by Eddie Anderson,, Donnell Addison,, Karen Alexander,, Keith Clark,, Billy Herring,, Kendrick Hunt,, Roy Oliver,, Fred Wiggins, has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: This document is a duplicate of document #34. (ehg, ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
38 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 33 Amended Complaint, filed by Eddie Anderson,, Donnell Addison,, Karen Alexander,, Keith Clark,, Billy Herring,, Kendrick Hunt,, Roy Oliver,, Fred Wiggins, has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Document filed and event used does not match. This is a duplicate of document #34. (ehg, ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
39 COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 36 Amended Document, filed by Eddie Anderson,, Donnell Addison,, Karen Alexander,, Keith Clark,, Billy Herring,, Kendrick Hunt,, Roy Oliver,, Fred Wiggins, has been filed. For future reference, please note ALL proposed orders should be e−mailed to the judge and not entered on ECF.. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (ehg, ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
40 ORDER granting 34 Intervening Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs shall file the amended complaint w/i 3 days from the date of this order, with service on all parties. Signed by Judge Tu M. Pham on 7/10/06. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
41 Intervenors' First AMENDED COMPLAINT against United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO, Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., United Association Of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklefitters, Plumber's Local Union No. 17, filed by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Marshall, Michael) Modified on 7/31/2006 (ehg, ). (Entered: 07/12/2006)
42 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Proposed Order Submitted, MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Proposed Order Submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Owen, Carson) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
43 ORDER granting 42 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel. Adele Rapport GRANTED leave to withdraw as counsel for EEOC and Faye Williams to be substituted as counsel . Signed by Judge Tu M. Pham on 7/31/06. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
44 ANSWER to Amended Complaint of Intervening Plaintiffs by United Association Of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklefitters, Plumber's Local Union No. 17.(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
45 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Amended Complaint by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. Responses due by 9/11/2006 (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
46 MEMORANDUM in Support re 45 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Amended Complaint filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
47 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc..(Velander, David) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
48 MOTION to Dismiss by Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc.. (Velander, David) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
49 MEMORANDUM in Support re 48 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of David A. Velander)(Velander, David) Modified text on 9/15/2006 (ehg, ). (Entered: 09/14/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 9 of 14

09/14/2006 10/06/2006 10/12/2006
10/13/2006 10/13/2006 10/16/2006 10/16/2006 10/27/2006 11/03/2006
11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/14/2006

50 ATTACHMENT to 49 Memorandum in Support of Motion by Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc.. (Velander, David) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
51 NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin Hunter Sharp on behalf of Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins (Sharp, Kevin) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
52 RESPONSE in Opposition re 48 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of EEOC's Motion to Dismiss# 2 Affidavit of Audrey Bonner# 3 Exhibit List to Affidavit of Audrey Bonner# 4 Exhibit A# 5 Exhibit (Collective) B# 6 Exhibit (Collective) C# 7 Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit E# 9 Exhibit (Collective) F# 10 Exhibit (Collective) G# 11 Affidavit of Timothy Williams# 12 Exhibit List to Affidavit of Timothy Williams# 13 Exhibit A# 14 Exhibit B# 15 Exhibit C# 16 Exhibit D# 17 Unreported Case − EEOC v. Mike Fink# 18 Unreported Case − EEOC v. Spectrum Health# 19 Unreported Case − EEOC v. VME Americas# 20 Unreported Case − EEOC v. Shelbyville Mixing Center# 21 Unreported Case − EEOC v. Cone Solvents# 22 Unreported Case − EEOC v. Norvell Wallace# 23 Unreported Case − EEOC v. Kaiser Foundation Health)(Owen, Carson) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
53 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 52 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, of Filing Omitted Exhibit M (Owen, Carson) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
54 COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 53 Notice (Other) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has been filed. For future reference, please note: Event to use should have been "Notice of Correction", because of Exhibit being omitted. The docket text has been corrected. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (ehg, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
55 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why the Motion of the Defendant, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO, to Dismiss the Intervenors' Amended Complaint Shoud Not be Granted; Show Cause Response due by 10/30/2006. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 10/16/06. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
56 RESPONSE in Opposition re 48 MOTION to Dismiss Intervening Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Tri−State Plumbings Motion to Dismiss filed by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Marshall, Michael) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
57 RESPONSE to Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Complaint Response to United Association's Motion to Dismiss Intervenors Amended Complaint filed by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Marshall, Michael) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
58 Joint MOTION to Set Aside Scheduling Order (proposed order submitted) by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO, Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., United Association Of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklefitters, Plumber's Local Union No. 17. (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
59 MOTION to Stay Discovery (proposed order submitted) by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
60 MEMORANDUM in Support re 59 MOTION to Stay Discovery (proposed order submitted) filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
61 ORDER Granting 58 Joint Motion to Suspend Scheduling Order . Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 11/14/06. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 11/14/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 10 of 14

11/14/2006 12/05/2006 12/05/2006 02/14/2007 02/27/2007 03/13/2007
03/13/2007 03/27/2007 08/21/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/11/2007 10/23/2007 11/15/2007 01/30/2008 02/01/2008

62 ORDER Granting 59 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 11/14/06. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
63 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum (proposed order submitted) by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Reply Memorandum)(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
64 ORDER Granting 63 Motion for Leave to File a Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Filed by Defendant United Association . Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 12/5/06. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
65 REPLY to Response to Motion re 45 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenors' Amended Complaint filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
66 ORDER denying 45 Motion to Dismiss the Intervenors' Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 02/27/07. (Breen, J.). (Entered: 02/27/2007)
67 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Proposed Order Submitted by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation # 2 Memorandum In Support of Motion for Extension)(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
68 ORDER Granting 67 Defendant United Association's Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File a Responsive Pleading; due 3/27/07. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 3/13/07. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
69 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO.(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
70 ORDER denying 48 Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 8/21/07. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
71 MOTION for Scheduling Conference (Proposed Order Submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Owen, Carson) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
72 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 71 MOTION for Scheduling Conference filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Tu Pham for the purpose of conducting a scheduling conference. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 10/10/07. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
73 SETTING LETTER: Scheduling Conference set for 10/25/2007 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (bdg) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
74 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 6/30/2008, Dispositive Motions due by 8/1/2008. Jury trial expected to last 3−4 weeks. The Scheduling Conference set for 10/25/07 is canceled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 10/23/07. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
75 SETTING LETTER: Jury Trial set for 11/3/2008 09:30 AM before Unassigned District Judge. Pretrial Conference set for 10/27/2008 01:30 PM before Unassigned District Judge. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due 10/20/2008. (tpe, ) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
76 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins.(Marshall, Michael) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
77 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 76 Request for Production of Documents filed by Billy Herring, Fred Wiggins, Karen Alexander, Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Kendrick Hunt, Keith Clark, Roy Oliver has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production and the responses to

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 11 of 14

05/21/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/30/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/07/2008
07/29/2008
07/31/2008
07/31/2008
11/05/2008 11/19/2008
11/19/2008 02/26/2009 02/26/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009

same, are served on opposing counsel and NOT FILED with the Court until used in the proceeding or the court orders filing. LR26.1. The filer is not required to correct or re−file the document. Any questions, please call the HelpDesk. (ehg, ) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
78 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge S. Thomas Anderson for all further proceedings. Judge J. Daniel Breen no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 5/21/08. (jae, ) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
79 Joint MOTION for Protective Order Proposed Order Submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Owen, Carson) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
80 ORDER granting 79 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 6/13/2008. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
81 Joint MOTION to Continue Case Deadlines (Proposed Order submitted) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Owen, Carson) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
82 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. ORDER granting 81 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 7/1/08. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery due by 4/17/2009. Filing Dispositive Motions 5/22/2009. (ehg, ) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
83 SETTING LETTER: Jury Trial reset for 8/24/2009 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson; Pretrial Conference set for 8/10/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson; Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/3/2009. (tlh, ) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
84 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney 's of Record, Proposed Order Submitted by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Kendrick Hunt, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Withdraw)(Marshall, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
85 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 84 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney 's of Record, Proposed Order Submitted filed by Billy Herring, Fred Wiggins, Karen Alexander, Donnell Addison, Eddie Anderson, Kendrick Hunt, Keith Clark, Roy Oliver. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 7/31/08. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
86 ORDER Granting 84 Michael R. Marshall and Kevin H. Sharp to Withdraw as Counsel for Kendrick Hunt. Attorneys Michael R. Marshall and Kevin Sharp terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 7/31/08. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
87 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 11/5/08. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
88 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Donnell Addison, Karen Alexander, Eddie Anderson, Keith Clark, Billy Herring, Roy Oliver, Fred Wiggins, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
89 ORDER of Voluntary Dismissal. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 11/18/08. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
90 SETTING LETTER: Status Conference set for 4/7/2009 09:15 AM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson. (tlh) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
91 AMENDED SETTING LETTER: Status Conference set for 4/7/2009 09:15 AM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson. (tlh) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
92 SETTING LETTER: Status Conference RESET for 4/16/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson. (tlh) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
93 AMENDED SETTING LETTER: Status Conference RESET for 4/16/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson. (tlh) (Entered:

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 12 of 14

04/16/2009 04/17/2009 04/20/2009 04/30/2009
05/01/2009 05/12/2009 10/08/2009 10/23/2009 11/05/2009
11/09/2009
11/13/2009
11/13/2009

04/03/2009)
96 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge S. Thomas Anderson: Status Conference held on 4/16/2009; Kendrick Hunt arrived late, wishes to proceed pro se; Court will refer matter to Magistrate Judge for scheduling conference. (Pro Se Plf: K. Hunt; Dft Attys: C. Beard, D. Velander − via phone, T. Taylor, N. Femia − via phone) (Court Reporter Mark Dodson.)(3:06−3:17) (tlh) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
94 ORDER OF REFERENCE for Scheduling Conference. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 4/17/09. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
95 Notice of Setting. A Scheduling Conference has been set for 4/30/2009 10:15 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (cas) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
98 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. Scheduling Conference held on 4/30/2009. Pro−Se plaintiff does not agree to the proposed scheduling order at this time. Plaintiff wishes to add parties to the matter. The Court advised plaintiff he must file a Motion to Amend Complaint to be able to add parties. Deadline for Motion to Amend Complaint is 8/1/2009. Proposed Scheduling Order to be entered. (Plaintiffs Counsel: K. Hunt (pro−se). Defendants Counsel: T. Taylor, D. Velander & N. Femia by phone.) (Tape #FTR) (cas) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
97 SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 8/1/2009. Discovery due by 10/30/2009. Joinder of Parties due by 8/1/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 1/15/2010. Jury trial expected to last 4−5 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 5/1/09. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
99 SETTING LETTER: Jury Trial set for 4/19/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson. Pretrial Conference set for 4/5/2010 09:15 AM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 3/29/2010. (tlh) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
100 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery proposed order submitted by all defendants. (Velander, David) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
101 ORDER referring case to Magistrate Judge for Mediation and granting 100 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 10/23/09. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
102 NOTICE OF SETTING: (TEXT ONLY − NO IMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY) A Telephonic Status Conference to determine a date for mediation has been set for Thursday, November 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. Counsel for Defendant shall set up and initiate the conference call prior to dialing Judge Pham's courtroom. However, the Court will notify you when you are to call into the courtroom. If you have any questions, please contact the case manager at sandra_mcclain@tnwd.uscourts.gov.(smm) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
103 NOTICE OF RE−SETTING: (TEXT ONLY − NO IMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY) A Telephonic Status Conference to determine a date for mediation currently set for Thursday, November 12, 2009 has been RE−SET to Friday, November 13, 2009 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. Counsel for Defendant shall set up and initiate the conference call prior to dialing Judge Pham's courtroom. However, the Court will notify you when you are to call into the courtroom. If you have any questions, please contact the case manager at sandra_mcclain@tnwd.uscourts.gov(smm) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
104 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/13/2009. The status of the case was discussed and a Settlement Conference has been set for Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (Participating Counsel: K. Hunt, D. Velander, T. Taylor and N. Femia)(Tape #FTR.) (smm) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
105 SETTING LETTER: Settlement Conference set for Thursday, 12/17/2009 at 10:00 AM in Suite 338, Third Floor, Federal Building, Memphis, Tennessee, before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. In camera statements due by close of business on

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 13 of 14

12/17/2009 12/17/2009 01/22/2010
01/22/2010
01/26/2010 03/29/2010 09/24/2010 09/27/2010 10/12/2010
10/29/2010 11/09/2010 11/15/2010 11/30/2010 12/02/2010 12/03/2010 12/10/2010

Monday, December 14, 2009. (bdg) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
106 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham: Settlement Conference held on 12/17/2009. (smm) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
107 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham: Settlement Conference held on 12/17/2009. (Tape #FTR.) (smm) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
108 Joint MOTION New Scheduling Order Proposed Order Submitted by Kendrick Hunt, Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., United Association Of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklefitters, Plumber's Local Union No. 17, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Scheduling Order)(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
109 Joint MOTION New Scheduling Order (CORRECTED) Proposed Order Submitted by Kendrick Hunt, Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., United Association Of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklefitters, Plumber's Local Union No. 17, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL−CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Scheduling Order)(Taylor, Timothy) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
110 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. ORDER granting granting 109 Corrected Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order.. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 1/26/10. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
111 SETTING LETTER: Jury Trial reset for 2/22/2011 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson. Pretrial Conference reset for 2/8/2011 09:15 AM in Courtroom 4 − Memphis before Judge S. Thomas Anderson. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 2/1/2011. (tlh) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
112 MOTION to Compel proposed order submitted by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition)(Velander, David) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
113 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 112 MOTION to Compel. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 9/27/10. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
114 ORDER Granting 112 Defendants' Joint Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions. Hunt is hereby ordered (1) to appear and give his deposition on orbefore October 21, 2010 as scheduled by counsel for defendants; (2) to respond to Defendant UA's outstanding written discovery on or before October 21, 2010; and (3) to supplement all other interrogatory and document production requests on or before October 21, 2010. Hunt is warned that failure to comply with this order or to cooperate in discovery shall result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 10/12/10. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
115 First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction proposed order submitted by Tri−State Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition)(Velander, David) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
116 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Kendrick Hunt. (vjm) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
117 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 11/15/10. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
118 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Kendrick Hunt. (vjm) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
119 ORDER granting 115 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 12/2/10. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
120 JUDGMENT In accordance with the Order Of Dismissal entered on 12/2/2010, this cause is hereby dismissed. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 12/3/2010. (Anderson, S.) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
121 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Kendrick Hunt. (vjm) (Entered: 12/10/2010)

Case: 2:05-cv-2717 As of: 06/08/2017 03:31 PM CDT 14 of 14

12/14/2010 12/14/2010

122 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Kendrick Hunt. (vjm) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
123 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Kendrick Hunt. (vjm) (Entered: 12/16/2010)