IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLY B. KIVILAAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:04-0814

)

)

Judge Nixon

)

Magistrate Judge Bryant

)

)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiff Kelly B. Kivilaan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, moves

this Court for an order certifying this action as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 23.01 of this Court. Plaintiff incorporates, by reference,

their Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as if fully set

forth herein. As grounds in support of this motion, Plaintiff states:

1. The class that the Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action is defined as:

All female employees nationwide who were covered, or have been covered, by Defendant’s health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of trial in this Action who used or sought coverage for prescription contraceptives not covered by the plans.

2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1) provides that a court should determine, as soon as

practicable after the commencement of an action, whether the action is to be maintained as a

class action.

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges all of the prerequisites of Rule 23(a). The proposed

Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all putative members is impracticable. Numerous

questions of law and fact common to the Class members exist. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of

1 Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 57 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 5

those of the Class members as all claims arise from the same wrongful conduct by the same

Defendants. Further, Plaintiff does not have any interests adverse to those of the class and have

retained competent counsel experienced in complex litigation.

4. Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for Rule 23(b)(2), seeking injunctive and

other equitable relief against Defendant, as American Airlines has acted on grounds generally

applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the

class as a whole.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby requests that this Court issue an order: certifying a class

(as defined above) under Rule 23(b)(2) seeking injunctive and other equitable relief against

Defendant American Airlines; designating Kelly B. Kivilaan as class representative, and;

appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel. A proposed Order is attached.

Date: November 16, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Victoria S. Nugent______
Michael D. Hausfeld Victoria S. Nugent COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFIELD & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. 5th Floor, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Ted L. Mann Robert Potter MANN, COWAN & POTTER, P.C. 2000-B SouthBridge Parkway Suite 601 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-9661 Facsimile: (205) 879-5356 E-mail: Ted@mcplaw.com
Robert@mcplaw.com

2 Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 57

Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 5

W. Gordon Ball BALL & SCOTT, P.A. 550 West Main Avenue, Suite 750 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 525-7028 Facsimile: (865) 525-4679
Counsel for Plaintiff

3 Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 57

Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLY B. KIVILAAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:04-0814

)

)

Judge Nixon

)

Magistrate Judge Bryant

)

)

ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support thereof, it is hereby

ORDERED that the following class is certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for purposes of this Action:

All female employees nationwide who were covered, or have been covered, by Defendant’s health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of trial in this Action who used or sought coverage for prescription contraceptives not covered by the plans.

ORDERED that Plaintiff Kelly B. Kivilaan shall serve as Class Representative.

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve as Class Counsel.

Date: _____________________

By: ________________________________ John T. Nixon, United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 57 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 16, 2006, I served the foregoing Motion for Class Certification through the Court’s CMECF system upon:
Waverly D. Crenshaw Stanley E. Graham Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis 511 Union Street Suite 27000 Nashville, TN 37219-8966
Ronald E. Manthey Melissa M. Hensley Baker & KcKenzie 2300 Trammell Crow Center 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201
Counsel for Defendant

Dated: November 16, 2006

/s/ Victoria S. Nugent Victoria S. Nugent

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 57 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLY B. KIVILAAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:04-0814

)

)

Judge Nixon

)

Magistrate Judge Bryant

)

)

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Civil Rule 23.01, Plaintiff Kelly B.

Kivilaan (hereinafter “Kivilaan” or “Plaintiff”) respectfully asks this Court to certify this case

against American Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter “American Airlines” or “Defendant”) for class

treatment. This case involves an undisputed nation-wide policy that applies across the board to all

putative class members: American Airlines singles out women for disadvantageous treatment by excluding prescription contraceptives1 and related services from its employee benefit plans. 2

Thus, the same legal and factual issues are raised with respect to all these employees, making the

1

Oral contraceptives (also called “birth control pills”) are the most commonly

known prescription contraceptive; prescription contraceptives also include Norplant, injectables,

intra-uterine devices (hereinafter “IUD”), the diaphragm and the cervical cap. American Airlines

excludes these drugs and medical devices from insurance coverage when they are prescribed for

purposes of contraception. See American Airlines Employee Benefits Guide (excerpts) at

AA/KIVILAAN 00046 (attached as Ex. A).

2

The central issue here is a pure question of law, which Plaintiffs anticipate the

Court will decide on summary judgment.

1

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 17

class action approach the most efficient and effective way to resolve them. Kivilaan, an employee of American Airlines, alleges that American Airlines’s policy
denying its employees health insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives discriminates against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter “Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (hereinafter “PDA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). Plaintiff alleges that American Airlines’s policy constitutes unlawful sex discrimination on its face because contraception is clearly “pregnancy-related” and, under the PDA, discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions” constitutes unlawful sex discrimination on its face.3 Plaintiff further alleges that American Airlines’s exclusion of prescription contraceptives has a disproportionate adverse impact on women and therefore constitutes unlawful “disparate impact” sex discrimination under Title VII.
This matter presents a classic case of system-wide sex discrimination, based on a written policy that applies uniformly to all class members. Kivilaan asserts a claim on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and asks the Court to certify the following class: “All female employees nationwide who were covered, or have been covered, by Defendant’s health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of trial in this Action who used or sought coverage for prescription contraceptives not covered by the plans.”4 In addition, the principal

3

The exclusion of prescription contraceptives and related services from an employee

health plan violates Title VII and specifically as amended by the PDA. See Erickson v. Bartell

Drug Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1277 (W.D. Wash. 2001); Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission Decision (E.E.O.C. 2000) (attached as Exhibit B). Indeed, this exclusion creates “a

gaping hole in the coverage offered to female employees, leaving a fundamental and immediate

healthcare need uncovered.” Erickson, 141 F. Supp. 2d at 1277.

4

Plaintiff has requested that Defendant identify and produce all employee health

2

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 17

relief Kivilaan seeks - injunctive and equitable relief ending the practice of excluding prescription contraceptives from American Airlines health benefits plans - will benefit all class members alike. In these circumstances, the requirements of Rule 23 are easily satisfied, as shown below. Accordingly, the proposed class should be certified.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Kivilaan has been a full-time employee of American Airlines, eligible for employee health insurance, since June 3, 1987. Complaint ¶ 14. As a term and condition of employment, Kivilaan was offered enrollment in an American Airlines health plan (hereinafter, referred to as “the Plan”) and enrolled. Under the Plan, her benefits included coverage of prescription drugs and devices. Id. The Plan is a written policy that is applied equally and uniformly to all eligible American Airlines employees. American Airlines’s benefits include coverage of many “preventative” drugs and devices, such as mammograms, drugs to prevent allergic reactions and drugs to prevent blood clotting. Id. ¶ 15. The Plan, however, specifically excludes from coverage contraceptive drugs and devices and related services. Id. See also Employee Benefits Guide, Ex. A, at AA/Kivilaan 00046. Kivilaan believes American Airlines has a nationwide uniform policy to exclude prescription contraceptives and related services from coverage under the Plan. Complaint ¶ 19.
care benefit programs for all of its employees. Defendant, however, has objected to the scope of these discovery requests and produced only those plans offered to or selected by Kivilaan – namely, variations of the Employee Benefits Guide for American Airlines Flight Attendants.
3
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 17

In order to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, Kivilaan has used oral contraceptives, a reversible method of contraception. Id. ¶ 17. As a result of American Airlines’s exclusion of prescription contraceptives from its employee health plan, Kivilaan has paid $37.59 a month out-of-pocket for her oral contraceptives. Id. ¶ 18.
III. ARGUMENT A motion for class certification is not an occasion for examination of the merits of the case. Reeb v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 81 F. App’x 550, 555 (6th Cir. 2003); Caridad v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 291 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 708 F.2d 475, 480 (9th Cir. 1983). There is “nothing in either the language or history of Rule 23 that gives a court any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177 (1974). Instead, the Court must determine if the plaintiffs and the proposed class can meet each of the requirements of Rule 23. No weighing of competing evidence is appropriate at this stage of the litigation, Caridad, 191 F.3d at 293; rather, a court should accept the complaint’s allegations as true for the purpose of deciding a class certification motion. Reeb, 81 F. App’x, at 555. Here, Plaintiff states claims under both the disparate treatment and disparate impact analyses of Title VII and the PDA. As discussed below, this class meets all the requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation. In addition, since Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, certification of this class is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2).
4
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 17

A. Civil Rights Litigation Is Well-Suited to Class Action Treatment Civil rights actions and, in particular, actions brought under Title VII, represent the paradigm for appropriate use of the class action device: Employment discrimination is particularly amenable to class treatment . . . . Institutional discrimination, often difficult to detect and enforce, avoids prompt remedial action through the often onerous litigation process available to the individual plaintiff. The widespread utilization of class actions and judicial recognition that invidious discrimination is by its very nature a public, not private, wrong have served to correct the traditional imbalance of the litigation process. 5 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 24.1, at 5, 7 (4th ed. 2002) (hereinafter “Newberg on Class Actions”). Courts have traditionally recognized that claims of discrimination against a class of plaintiffs are particularly well-suited to class action treatment. Gore v. Turner, 563 F.2d 159, 166 (5th Cir. 1977) (“by definition, discrimination on the basis of race is a class wrong”); Gay v. Waiters’ & Dairy Lunchmen’s Union, 549 F.2d 1330, 1333 (9th Cir. 1977) (“Since the purpose of Title VII is to eliminate such class based discrimination, class actions are favorable in Title VII actions for salutary policy reasons.”); Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1968) (“Racial discrimination is by definition class discrimination.”). In this case, Kivilaan challenges an unambiguous, written, company-wide policy, which by definition affects an entire class of employees. Class certification is routinely granted - or conceded by the defendant - in similar cases involving a uniform written company policy. E.g., Int’l Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187, 192-93 (1991) (parties stipulated to class certification in a Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII case challenging an employer’s “fetal protection policy”); Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 848-49 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 914 (2001) (parties stipulated to class certification in Title VII case where policy at issue related to sex-based weight requirements for flight attendants); Gerdom v. Cont’l
5
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 17

Airlines, 648 F.2d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 1981) (class of female flight attendants certified as Title VII class challenging sex-based weight restrictions); Waldrip v. Motorola, Inc., 85 F.R.D. 349, 351 (N.D. Ga. 1980) (certifying class challenging mandatory pregnancy leave policy).
Moreover, various courts have certified classes challenging policies nearly identical to that challenged here. See, e.g., Stocking v. AT&T Corp., 436 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (W.D. Mo. 2006) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and certifying case challenging the exclusion of prescription contraceptives from the employee benefits plan); Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. Civ. A. 1:01-CV2755JEC, 2002 WL 2022334 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2002) (certifying a class of nation-wide employees challenging the exclusion of prescription contraceptives from the employee benefits program) (attached as Ex. C); Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., No. C00-1213L, slip op. (W.D. Wash. Dec. 14, 2000) (same) (attached as Ex. D). In all three cases, the courts certified classes under Rule 23(b)(2) of female employees who alleged that their employers’ exclusion of prescription birth control from their health benefits plan constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.
Class certification is likewise appropriate here. Plaintiff alleges that American Airlines’s exclusion of prescription contraceptives from an otherwise comprehensive health insurance plan constitutes sex discrimination against an entire class of employees. If liability is found, only class certification will ensure that the injured parties will secure meaningful equitable and injunctive relief.
B. The Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) provides that a case may proceed as a class action if:
(1) [T]he class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of
6
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 17

the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Rutherford v. City of Cleveland, 137 F.3d 905, 909 (6th Cir. 1998). Each of these requirements has been specifically pleaded in this case, and each is manifestly satisfied. In determining whether a class action will be allowed, the substantive allegations of the complaint should be taken as true, and all factual disputes arising at the hearing and in the pleadings are to be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 nn.16 & 17 (9th Cir. 1975); Drayton v. W. Auto Supply Co., 203 F.R.D. 520, 524 (M.D. Fla. 2000). 1. The Class Is So Numerous That Joinder of All Members Is Impracticable American Airlines has between 100,000 and 150,000 employees in the United States. Complaint ¶ 11. Given the number of qualifying employees5 and the well-documented utilization rates for prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, Kivilaan believes that the class consists of at least thousands of women. The “sheer number of potential litigants in a class, especially if it is more than several hundred, can be the only factor needed to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).” Bacon v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 370 F.3d 565, 570 (6th Cir. 2004), cert denied, 543 U.S. 1151 (2005). Therefore, the numerosity requirement is satisfied here. Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d

5

Despite Plaintiff’s requests, American Airlines has refused to identify the number

of employees covered by its health insurance plans during the class period. Defendant has

objected to the scope of this request and indicated that it will identify only the number of flight

attendants covered by the 2006 health benefit plans that were applicable to Kivilaan, though this

lawsuit was filed in 2004 on behalf of all female employees. See generally Complaint. Such

unreasonable limitations on discovery are untenable and, to the extent the parties are unable to

reach an agreement, the Plaintiffs will move this Court to compel Defendant to provide responsive

answers to Plaintiff’s requests for interrogatories and production of documents.

7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 17

1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986) (“while there is no fixed numerosity rule, ‘generally less than twenty-one is inadequate, more than forty adequate, with numbers between varying according to other factors’”); Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc., 789 F.2d 859, 878 (11th Cir. 1986) (affirming certification where there were at least 31 class members). Further, the numerosity requirement should be read liberally when certification is sought for a civil rights use. Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1100 (5th Cir. 1975).
2. There are Questions of Law and Fact Common to the Class Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be questions of law or fact common to the class. The commonality requirement, however, is “qualitative rather than quantitative, that is, there need only be a single issue common to all members of the class.” In re Am. Med. Sys. Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1080 (6th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Rule 23 does not require that all questions of law and fact raised be common. Cox, 784 F.2d at 1557. The claims actually litigated in the suit must simply be those fairly represented by the named plaintiffs. Id. “Indeed, Rule 23(a)(2) has been construed permissively . . . . The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurposes, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 337, 342 (M.D. Fla. 1997). Moreover, even when individual factual circumstances are present among the class members, “the commonality requirement is satisfied where it is alleged that the defendants have acted in a uniform manner with respect to the class.” Buford v. H&R Block, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 340, 349 (S.D. Ga. 1996), aff’d, 117 F.3d 1433 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Int’l Molders’ & Allied Workers’ Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 102 F.R.D. 457, 462 (N.D. Cal. 1983)).
8
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 8 of 17

The commonality requirement is satisfied when a class of employees challenges

company-wide policies. Cox, 784 F.2d at 1557-59 (court certified class challenging compensation,

promotion and training policies); Shipes v. Trinity Indus., 987 F.2d 311, 316 (5th Cir. 1993)

(commonality satisfied in class of employees who work at two different plants because the plants

used the same insurance plan and the same employee handbook); Ingram v. Coca-Cola Co., 200

F.R.D. 685, 697 (N.D. Ga. 2001) (“commonality exists where plaintiffs allege that company-wide

policies and practices . . . discriminate against a class”); see also Erickson, No. C00-1213L (W.D.

Wash. Dec. 14, 2000) (commonality and typicality not challenged by defendant where company

had a written policy specifically excluding prescription contraceptives from employee plan) (Ex.

D); Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2002 WL 2022334 (Ex. C). Thus, the commonality

requirement is satisfied here, where a company-wide policy of excluding prescription birth control

from its health benefits plan affects Kivilaan and class members in the same way.

Numerous questions of law and fact raised by the Complaint are common to the Plaintiff

and the class, including:

•

Whether American Airlines’s conduct violates Title VII, as amended by the PDA,

which prohibits discrimination based on “pregnancy, childbirth or related medical

conditions;”

•

Whether American Airlines’s conduct - its exclusion of contraceptives from its

health benefits plans - constitutes disparate treatment on the basis of sex in

violation of Title VII;

•

Whether American Airlines’s conduct has a disparate impact on women and

therefore constitutes unlawful “disparate impact” sex discrimination under Title

VII;

•

The nature and scope of declaratory relief appropriate in this case;

•

The nature and scope of injunctive relief necessary to prevent further violations of

federal law; and,

9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 17

•

The nature and scope of equitable relief appropriate to complement any injunctive

relief awarded by the Court.

Complaint ¶ 32. Given these common questions that go to the heart of this litigation, the claims

of Kivilaan and the class have more than enough in common to satisfy the commonality prong of

Rule 23(a).

3. Plaintiff’s Claims are Typical of Those of the Other Class Members

The commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge. Indeed, “[b]oth

serve as guideposts determining whether under the particular circumstances maintenance of a class

action is economical and whether the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so

interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their

absence.” Gen. Tel. Co. of SW. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n.13 (1982); see also Prado-Steiman

ex rel. Parado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000), Buford, 168 F.R.D. at 350.

Kivilaan’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members as a whole. The typicality

requirement is satisfied where a plaintiff’s claims “arise[] from the same event or practice or

course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the other class members, and if his or her claims

are based on the same legal theory.” Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d at 1082 (citation omitted). The

typicality threshold is low, Buford, 168 F.R.D. at 351, and may be satisfied even if there are

substantial factual distinctions between the claims of the named plaintiff and other class members,

Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511, 524 (6th Cir. 1976) (“Factual identity between the

plaintiff's claims and those of the class he seeks to represent is not necessary.”); Larkin v.

Pullman-Standard Div., 854 F.2d 1549, 1573 (11th Cir. 1988), vacated on other grounds, 493 U.S.

929 (1989).

10 Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 10 of 17

Kivilaan’s experience and claims are typical of the class. Like every other class member, Kivilaan has been employed by American Airlines during the relevant period, is enrolled in the Plan, and was denied coverage for prescription contraceptives. This same fact pattern is shared by all other class members. Consequently, the typicality requirement is satisfied.
4. Plaintiff and Her Attorneys Are Adequate Representatives Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the named representative “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Adequate representation requires that: “1) The representative must have common interests with unnamed members of the class, and 2) it must appear that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Senter, 532 F.2d at 525 (citing Gonzales v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67, 73 (5th Cir. 1973)). Here, the interests of the class and the interests of Kivilaan coincide completely. The class members and Kivilaan all suffer from the same problem: American Airlines’s Plan fails to cover their basic health need for prescription contraceptives. All seek to prove that American Airlines’s conduct violate Title VII, as amended by the PDA, because it constitutes unlawful disparate treatment on the basis of sex, as well as unlawful disparate impact on a protected class (women) in violation of Title VII. Furthermore, Kivilaan and other class members would benefit from the same injunctive and declaratory relief because they would no longer have to choose between paying for prescription contraceptives out-of-pocket or forgoing their use altogether. Kivilaan is willing to vigorously prosecute the case on behalf of the class and she has selected class counsel who are prepared to do the same. Accordingly, the proposed class representative meets the adequacy requirement for class certification. Gonzales, 474 F.2d 67. In addition, Plaintiff has retained counsel who have the resources and expertise to
11
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 11 of 17

prosecute this action vigorously on behalf of the class. Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced in representing plaintiffs in complex class action litigation, including civil rights and employment discrimination cases.6
C. Because the Class Seeks Primarily Injunctive and Equitable Relief, Class Certification is Proper Under Rule 23(b)(2)
In addition to satisfying the four factors of Rule 23(a), a plaintiff seeking class certification must show that the action is maintainable as a class action under either Rule 23(b)(1), (2) or (3). Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613 (1997). Rule 23(b)(2) permits a class action to be brought if the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met, and:
[T]he party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).7 “Lawsuits alleging class-wide discrimination are particularly well suited for 23(b)(2) treatment since the common claim is susceptible to a single proof and subject to a single injunctive remedy.” Senter, 532 F.2d at 525. This case falls squarely within the requirement of Rule 23(b)(2). American Airlines has “acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class” by implementing an across-the-board written policy denying its employees prescription contraceptive benefits, despite providing coverage for other prescription drugs and devices. Various courts have certified cases challenging nearly identical practices under Rule 23(b)(2). See, e.g, Mauldin, 2002 WL 2022334,

6

See firm resumes (attached as Ex. E).

7

Since the modern class action rule was amended in 1966, the Advisory Committee

has cited civil rights actions as illustrative of the Rule 23(b)(2) model. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

23, Advisory Committee Notes, 1966 Amendment.

12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 12 of 17

at *16-17 (Ex. C); Erickson, No. C00-1213L (W.D. Wash. Dec. 14, 2000) (Ex. D); In re Union Pac. R.R. Employment Practices Litig., No. MDL 1597, 803CV437, 2005 WL 1027078, at *4-5 (D. Neb. Mar. 31, 2005) (attached as Ex. F).8 Similar treatment is appropriate here.
The predominant relief requested by the class is a declaratory judgment that American Airlines’s policy violates Title VII and an injunction preventing American Airlines from engaging in the challenged discriminatory conduct. See Complaint at 11. Above all, this case seeks to alter Defendant’s discriminatory conduct.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s only monetary claim seeks equitable relief; that is, back pay or nominal damages to reimburse class members for the out-of-pocket expenditures for prescription contraceptives and related services during the class period. As such, “[t]his is not a case where individualized inquiry needs to be made to determine back pay or fringe benefits other than those related to the coverage of prescription contraceptives.” In re Union Pac. R.R. Litig., 2005 WL

8

Furthermore, courts have consistently found civil rights cases compatible with

class treatment under Rule 23(b)(2); See e.g. Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 614 (“Civil rights cases

against parties charged with unlawful, class-based discrimination are prime examples”); Cox, 784

F.2d at 1558 (Rule 23(b)(2) class certified where plaintiffs alleged pattern and practice of sex

discrimination); Kilgo, 789 F.2d at 859 (certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class of present and future

employees and deterred job applicants); Holmes v. Cont’l. Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1152 (11th Cir.

1983) (“Civil rights class actions . . . are generally treated under subsection (b)(2) of Rule 23.”);

Robinson v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2001) (finding 23(b)(2)

certification appropriate in civil rights cases in which monetary damages were sought); Linney v.

Cellular Ala. P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 23(b)(2) class certification

granted in civil rights case in which injunctive or declaratory relief was the predominant remedy

sought); Shores v. Publix. Super Mkts, Inc., No. 95-1162-CIV-T-25(E), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

3381, at *27 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 1996) (finding hybrid Rule 23(b)(2) certification the appropriate

mechanism for resolving an employment discrimination action) (attached as Ex. G); Drayton, 203

F.R.D. at 528 (“Civil Rights cases . . . are prime examples of Rule 23(b)(2) actions.”); Waldrip, 85

F.R.D. at 349 (certifying Rule 23(b)(2) class in sex discrimination suit challenging mandatory

maternity leave); Ingram, 200 F.R.D. at 699 (approving certification of Title VII injunctive and

equitable relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and compensatory and punitive damages under 23(b)(3)).

13

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 13 of 17

1027078, at *5 (Ex. F). Indeed, the damages owed to class members will be determined through objective data – by receipts and market prices for prescription contraception over the class period. Courts have long recognized back pay as an equitable remedy compatible with Rule 23(b)(2) class certification. See Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 218 n.4 (2002); Coleman v. Gen. Motors, 286 F.3d 433, 450 (6th Cir. 2005) (acknowledging that back pay is an equitable remedy compatible with certification under Rule 23(b)(2); Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d 87, 95 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (same); In re Monumental Life Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 408, 418 (5th Cir. 2004) (same), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 870 (2004) (No. 04-27); Holmes, 706 F.2d at 1152 (class action based on Title VII discrimination claim seeking equitable, injunctive or declaratory relief, including back pay, was properly certified as Rule 23(b)(2) class action); Probe v. State Teachers’ Ret. Sys., 780 F.2d 776, 780 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Class actions certified under Rule 23(b)(2) are not limited to actions requesting only injunctive or declaratory relief, but may include cases that also seek monetary damages”); EEOC v. Gen. Tel. Co., 599 F.2d 322, 334 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Even if the suit contains a request for back pay the case continues to be properly certifiable under Rule 23(b)(2).”); Orlowski v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, 172 F.R.D. 370 (N.D. Ill. 1997); Butler v. Home Depot, 70 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 51 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (attached as Ex. H). 9
Furthermore, the overwhelming authority makes plain that compensation for lost employment fringe benefits constitutes “back pay” and is consequently available as equitable relief. Crabtree v. Baptist Hosp. of Gadsden, Inc., 749 F.2d 1501, 1502 (11th Cir. 1985)

9

The very language of Title VII makes clear that back pay is an integral part of

equitable relief. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g) (“the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in

[an] unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate,

which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without

backpay . . . or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate”) (emphasis added).

14

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 14 of 17

(“Because the object of the backpay provisions of Title VII is to make employees whole for losses suffered on account of unlawful discrimination, fringe benefits should be included in back pay.” (citation omitted)); Cox, 784 F.2d at 1562 (As a matter of law, back pay awards consist of more than straight salary and should include fringe benefits); E.E.O.C. v. Wilson Metal Casket Co., 24 F.3d 836, 841 (6th Cir. 1994) (back pay awards may include fringe benefits such as compensation for medical expenses incurred); Metz v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 39 F.3d 1482, 1493 (10th Cir. 1994) (lost fringe benefits are available under the back pay and equitable relief provisions of Title VII); Brooks v. Hilton Casinos, Inc., 959 F.2d 757, 768, n.11 (9th Cir. 1992) (court awarded compensation for lost retirement benefits as an equitable remedy in a Title VII action); O’Neal v. Thomas, No. 1:89-CV-218-RHH, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19038, at *9 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 15, 1990) (awarding lost fringe benefits as part of back pay in a Title VII case) (attached as Ex. I); EEOC v. Emerson Elec. Co., No. 81-862C(2), 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30537, at *1-3 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 13, 1986) (in Title VII action challenging lack of coverage for pregnancy-related expenses, the award of lost insurance benefits deemed appropriate as analogous to back pay) (attached as Ex. J); see generally 2 Barbara Lindemann & Paul Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 1779-83 (3d ed. 1996).
Accordingly, class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2). V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully submits that this case should be certified as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). This is a classic case of system-wide sex discrimination, based on a written policy that applies uniformly to all class members. As a remedy, Plaintiff seeks predominantly injunctive and declaratory relief. The
15
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 15 of 17

merits of this claim, and any defenses that American Airlines may present, should be determined in a unified, class-wide proceeding.

PLLC

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Victoria S. Nugent______
Michael D. Hausfeld Victoria S. Nugent COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFIELD & TOLL,
1100 New York Avenue, N.W. 5th Floor, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Ted L. Mann Robert Potter MANN, COWAN & POTTER, P.C. 2000-B SouthBridge Parkway Suite 601 Birmingham, Alabama 35209 Telephone: (205) 879-9661 Facsimile: (205) 879-5356 E-mail: Ted@mcplaw.com
Robert@mcplaw.com
W. Gordon Ball BALL & SCOTT, P.A. 550 West Main Avenue, Suite 750 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 525-7028 Facsimile: (865) 525-4679
Counsel for Plaintiff

16 Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 16 of 17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 16, 2006, I served the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification through the Court’s CMECF system upon:

Waverly D. Crenshaw WALLER, LANSDEN, DORTCH & DAVIS, PLLC 511 Union Street Suite 27000 Nashville, TN 37219-8966 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Facsimile: (615) 244-6804

Ronald E. Manthey Melissa M. Hensley BAKER& MCKENZIE, LLP 2300 Trammell Crow Center 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-3000 Facsimile: (214) 978-3099 Counsel for Defendants

/s/ Victoria S. Nugent

17 Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 17 of 17

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 8 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 10 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 11 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 12 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 13 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 14 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 15 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 16 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 17 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 18 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 19 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 20 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 21 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 22 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 23 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 24 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 25 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 26 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 27 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 28 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 29 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-1 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 30 of 30

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 8 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 10 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 11 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 12 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 13 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 14 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 15 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 16 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 17 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 18 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 19 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 20 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 21 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 22 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 23 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 24 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 25 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 26 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 27 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 28 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 29 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 30 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 31 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 32 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 33 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 34 of 34

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-3 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 8 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 10 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 11 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 12 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 13 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 14 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 15 of 15

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-5 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-5 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-5 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-5 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 8 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 10 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 11 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 12 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 13 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 14 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 15 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 16 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 17 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 18 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 19 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 20 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-6 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 21 of 21

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-7 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-7 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-7 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-7 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-7 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-7 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-7 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-7 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 8 of 9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-7 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 9

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 8 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 10 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 11 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-8 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 12 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 8 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 10 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 11 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-9 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 12 of 12

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-10 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-10 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-10 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-10 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-10 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 5 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-10 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-10 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 7

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-11 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 3

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-11 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 3

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 58-11 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLY B. KIVILAAN,

)

Individually and on behalf of all

)

others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

Case No. 3:04-0814

v.

)

)

Judge Nixon

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

) Magistrate Judge Bryant

)

Defendant.

)

______________________________________________________________________________

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ______________________________________________________________________________

NOW INTO COURT comes the Plaintiff, Kelley B. Kivilaan, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by consent and by leave of Court, and files this First Amended

Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated. This Amended Complaint is alleged upon information and belief, except as to those

allegations which pertain to the named Plaintiff, which are alleged on her personal knowledge.

I. NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is a class action brought for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. §2000e, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k) (“PDA”),

for discrimination on the basis of sex against American Airlines, Inc. (including all “American

Airlines” departments) (collectively “American Airlines” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff’s claims arise out

of Defendant’s decision not to provide coverage for prescription contraceptives and related services

as part of its employee benefit plan while providing coverage for other prescription drugs and devices,

and other preventive health services and products.

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 13

2. Defendant singles out women for disadvantageous treatment by excluding prescription contraceptives and related services from its employee benefit plan. Prescription contraception, which is available for use only by women, is basic medical care for women who have the potential to become pregnant but who wish to control that potential by reversible means. Defendant covers prescription drugs, including a number of preventive drugs and devices. The failure to provide coverage for prescription contraception treats medication needed for a pregnancy-related condition less favorably than medication needed for other medical conditions. As a result, Defendant’s plan provides less complete coverage to female employees than to male employees, Defendant’s action therefore constitutes facial sex discrimination.
3. In addition, Defendant’s exclusion of prescription contraception and related services has an adverse disparate impact on Plaintiff arid other class members. Because prescription contraceptives are available for use only by women, Defendant’s practice of excluding coverage for prescription contraception forces women covered by the plan to choose between paying their own outof-pocket prescription costs or risking unintended pregnancy.
4. As a result of Defendant’s decision to exclude contraceptives and related services from its employee benefit plan, Plaintiff and class members are being discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment, which includes the receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs because of their potential for pregnancy. This violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k).
5. Ms. Kivilaan, on behalf of herself and the class she represents, seeks injunctive relief for Defendant’s discriminatory conduct described herein.
-2-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 13

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, which confers original jurisdictionupon this Court for actions arising under the laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(4), which confers original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights. Plaintiff alleges discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e. 7. Venue is proper in this District under28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c), and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3) because the unlawful employment practices giving rise to this claim occurred in this District and Defendant conducts a substantial amount of business within this District. 8. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202 and by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the general legal and equitable powers of this Court. 9. Unless permanently restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendant will continue to engage in the discriminatory acts and practices alleged in this Amended Complaint.
III. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Kelley B. Kivilaan is a resident of Nashville, Tennessee, and has been an employee of American Airlines since 1987. Ms. Kivilaan uses prescription contraceptives, which are not covered by her employee health insurance plan, although the plan covers other prescription medication.
-3-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 3 of 13

11. Defendant American Airlines is a Delaware corporation that conducts substantial business in the States of Tennessee and Texas and has between 100,000 and 150,000 employees in the United States.
IV. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 12. On December 15, 2003, Ms. Kivilaan filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in Nashville, Tennessee on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, alleging that Defendant’s failure to provide her with health insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. The charge (without Exhibits) is attached hereto as Exhibit A to this Amended Complaint. 13. On July 1, 2004, Ms. Kivilaan received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC. This Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
V. THE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM 14. Plaintiff Kelley B. Kivilaan has been an employee of American Airlines since June 3, 1987. On or about June 1987, Ms. Kivilaan became a full-time employee, eligible for employee health insurance. As a term and condition of employment, Ms. Kivilaan was offered enrollment in American Airlines’s employee health insurance plan and enrolled upon eligibility. Under the plan, her benefits include coverage of prescription drugs and devices. 15. On information and belief, Ms. Kivilaan’s benefits include coverage of many preventive drugs and devices, such as mammograms and drugs to prevent blood clotting. However, the plan specifically excludes from coverage many pregnancy-related services and medications, including contraceptive drugs and devices and related services.
-4-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 4 of 13

16. Ms. Kivilaan is a 36 year old married mother with one child, working twenty (20) hours a week earning $32,000.00 per year. She does not desire to have more children at this time.
17. In order to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, Ms. Kivilaan uses birth control pills (also known as oral contraceptives), a reversible method of contraception. Ms. Kivilaan’s physician prescribed oral contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. Ms. Kivilaan attempted to fill the prescription after enrolling in American Airlines’ health insurance plan over several years. She was informed by her pharmacist that her employee’s insurance plan does not cover prescription contraceptives. As a result, Ms. Kivilaan paid out-of-pocket for her oral contraceptives.
18. On or about October 10, 2003, Ms. Kivilaan sought insurance coverage of her birth control pills and was again denied. Ms. Kivilaan filed a claim with her employer’s health insurance administrator and was told that her employee health insurance plan does not cover prescription contraceptives. Because prescription contraceptives are excluded by American Airlines’ employee health plan, Ms. Kivilaan pays $37.59 a month out-of-pocket for her birth control pills.
19. While providing coverage for other prescription drugs and devices, Plaintiff’s health insurance plan specifically excludes prescription drugs and devices used by women to prevent pregnancy. The health insurance plan also specifically excludes services and charges relating to birth control. Ms. Kivilaan believes American Airlines has a nationwide policy to exclude prescription contraceptives and related services from coverage. Since only women use prescription contraceptives, Defendant’s health plan provides less complete coverage to women than to men.
20. As a result of Defendant’s failure to cover contraception, Ms. Kivilaan must continue to pay for her monthly supply of birth control pills out-of-pocket or risk the emotional and physical effects of an unintended pregnancy.
-5-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 5 of 13

VI. FACTUAL FRAMEWORK 21. For a significant portion of their lives, women have the biological potential for pregnancy. Contraception is a drug or device that prevents pregnancy. Contraceptives work either by preventing fertilization of a woman’s ovum or by preventing implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall. All methods of prescription contraception approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), including oral contraceptives (“birth control pills”), Norplant, injectables, intra-uterine devices (“IUD”), the diaphragm and the cervical cap, are available for use only by women. 22. The typical American woman spends roughly three decades – or about 75% of her reproductive life – trying to avoid unintended pregnancy. Of the 60.2 million women of reproductive age, 64% currently use contraception. Ninety-four percent of American women use contraception at some point during their reproductive years. For many healthy women, contraception is the only prescription drug they use on a regular basis. Among all women aged 20-44 who have ever had sexual intercourse, 85% have used prescription oral contraceptives. 23. The consequences of failure to use contraception is pregnancy. Pregnancy is a medical condition that poses risks to, and consequences for, a woman. Because of the significant physiological, bio-chemical and anatomical changes that a woman undergoes during pregnancy, the preexisting medical conditions of many women are exacerbated by pregnancy. Among those are: certain blood diseases, including sickle-cell disease; heart disease; endocrine disorders, such as diabetes; diseases of the nervous system such as epilepsy; kidney and liver diseases; connective tissue disorders, such as systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. Moreover, even in an otherwise healthy woman, pregnancy poses medical risks that are significantly greater than the risks
-6-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 6 of 13

of using contraception. In any given year, the risk of death from pregnancy is 1 in 11,000. The morbidity rate during pregnancy is high as well. Twenty-two percent of all pregnant women are hospitalized before delivery because of complications.
24. Because women bear all of the physical burdens of pregnancy, contraception is basic to women’s health and well-being.
25. If no method of contraception were used, the average woman would be expected to have between 12 and 15 pregnancies in her lifetime. The physical, financial and emotional burdens of such childbearing would, in many cases, cause serious harm to the woman, her family and society.
26. Choice of contraceptive method is essential to successful pregnancy prevention due to the wide variation in effectiveness, cost, and medical appropriateness of available forms of contraception. Factors that contribute to what type of contraception a woman chooses to use are whether the woman intends to delay, space or entirely prevent future childbearing. Thus, coverage of all FDA approved contraceptive drugs and devices is essential.
27. Inadequate insurance coverage of contraception has substantial economic consequences for the 67% of American women of reproductive age who rely on employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. These women pay 68% more in out-of-pocket expenditures for health care services than men and reproductive health services account for much of that difference. Almost 5 million privately insured women have out-of-pocket expenditures for health care services in excess of 10% of their income.
VII. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 28. The Pregnancy Discrimination. Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k), was enacted by Congress in 1978 as an amendment to Title VII, to clarify that Title VII’s prohibition against gender
-7-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 13

discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. 29. In December 2000, the EEOC decided that because PDA prohibits discrimination
against a woman based on her ability to become pregnant, it is a violation of Title VII for an employer health plan that covers prescription drugs and devices to exclude prescription contraceptives since they are a means by which a woman may control precisely the ability to become pregnant. The EEOC decision requires that employers provide the same insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives and related services that they do for other drugs, devices and services.
VIII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 30. Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all current female employees of American Airlines, Inc. nationwide who are or were eligible for benefits under American Airline, Inc.’s health insurance plans, or who are covered, or have been covered, by Defendant’s health insurance plans at anytime between February 18, 2003 and the present. Plaintiff and all class members are members of a protected class, “women,” pursuant to Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) for the reasons stated below. 31. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is not practical. Upon information and belief, there are thousands of women covered by American Airlines’s plan who use or have sought coverage for prescription contraceptives. The precise number of women affected is within the exclusive knowledge of Defendant and is subject to discovery in this action. 32. There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to all class members which control this litigation, including:
(a) whether Defendant’s health insurance plan covers prescription
-8-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 8 of 13

medications; (b) whether Defendant’s health insurance plan covers prescription
contraceptives; (c) whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes discrimination in
violation of Title VII; and (d) whether class members are entitled to injunctive relief. 33. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class and Plaintiff has no interests adverse to those of other class members. 34. Plaintiff and class members are all enrolled in Defendant’s health insurance plan. They are all women who were and continue to be subjected to Defendant’s discriminatory practice. 35. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interest of each member of the class. Plaintiff is committed to vigorously prosecuting this action and has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature. 36. This action can be properly maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) in that Defendant’s refusal to provide coverage for prescription contraceptives on grounds generally applicable to the class makes it appropriate for injunctive relief on a classwide basis.
COUNT I (Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq.: Disparate Treatment) 37. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 above. 38. This Court is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k).
-9-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 9 of 13

39. Defendant singles out women for disadvantageous treatment by excluding prescription contraceptives and related services from its employees benefit plan while covering other prescription medications, devices and services.
40. Prescription contraception, which is available for use only by women, is basic medical care for women who have the potential to become pregnant but who wish to control that potential by reversible means. The failure to provide coverage for prescription contraception treats medication needed for a pregnancy-related condition less favorably than medication needed for other medical conditions. As a result of Defendant’s failure to cover prescription contraception, Plaintiff and the class must pay for their contraceptives out-of-pocket or risk the emotional and physical effects of an unintended pregnancy. Defendant’s action therefore constitutes facial sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.
41. Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below. COUNT II
(Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, etseq.: Disparate Impact) 42. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 above. 43. Defendant has a practice of excluding prescription contraception and related services from its health insurance plan. Because prescription contraceptives are available for use only by women, Defendant’s practice has an adverse disparate impact on women in violation of Title VII. 44. As a result of Defendant’s failure to cover prescription contraception, Plaintiff and the class must pay for their contraceptives out-of-pocket or risk the emotional and physical effects of an unintended pregnancy. 45. Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.
-10-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 10 of 13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for herself and the members of the Class as follows: 1. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed class and designation of Plaintiff as representative of the class and her counsel of record as Class Counsel; 2. Preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendant from engaging in the unlawful practices complained of herein, including an injunction ordering Defendant to provide coverage for the full range of FDA-approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices and coverage for contraceptive-related services; 3. A judgment declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k); 4. An order restraining Defendant from any retaliation against Plaintiff or any class member for participation in any form in this litigation; 5. The costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k); and 6. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable at law.
-11-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 11 of 13

Respectfully submitted, this 4th day of June, 2009.
W. Gordon Ball_________ Gordon Ball, Esq. TN BPR # 001135 Ball & Scott Law Offices Suite 601, Bank of America Center 550 Main Street Knoxville, TN 37902 Tel: 865.525.7028 Ted L. Mann, Esq. Robert Potter, Esq. Mann, Cowan & Potter, P.C. 2000-B SouthBridge Parkway, Suite 601 Birmingham, AL 35209 Tel.: 205.879.9661 Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Hausfeld LLP 1146 – 19th Street, N.W., Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel.: 202.579.1089 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class
-12-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 12 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 4, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Waverly D. Crenshaw, Esquire Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis
511 Union Street, Suite 27000 Nashville, TN 37219-8966 615-244-6380 (tel) 615-244-6804 (fax) Ronald E. Manthey, Esquire Melissa M. Hensley, Esquire
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 214-466-4000 (tel) 214-466-4001 (fax) ___W. Gordon Ball_________________
-13-
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 193 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 13 of 13

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Case No. 3:04-0814 - Kivilaan v. American Airlines, Inc. Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement

TO: ALL CURRENT FEMALE EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. nationwide who are or were eligible for benefits under American Airlines, Inc.' s health insurance plans, or who are covered, or have been covered, by Defendant's health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of the final approval of the settlement in this litigation.

Why is this Notice Important? If you are currently a female employee of American Airlines, Inc. and satisfy all of the above requirements for eligibility, you may be a member of a certified class action lawsuit in which a proposed Settlement has been reached. The lawsuit, entitled Kivilaan v. American Airlines, Inc., was brought by class action counsel and alleges that American Airlines, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.c. §2000e(k) ("PDA"), for discrimination on the basis of sex by failing to provide certain coverage for prescription contraceptives and related services as part of some of its employee benefit plans. American Airlines, Inc. believes that it has good and meritorious defenses against the claims alleged, and denies all liability and any wrongdoing related to the claims asserted in this lawsuit by Plaintiff. American Airlines, Inc. has agreed to settle the Litigation as a compromise to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty associated with further litigation in this matter and to buy its peace. Class Counsel have conducted an investigation into the facts and the law regarding the Litigation and have concluded that this settlement is in the best interest of Plaintiff and the Settlement Class.

This Is Only A Summary Notice. You can log onto www.kivilaansettlement.com to review a copy of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release and all documents submitted to the Court in connection with preliminary approval, which contain further information about the Settlement.

What Are the Terms of the Settlement?

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and becomes effective, American Airlines has agreed, subject to future plan design, effective January 1, 2011, to offer coverage to eligible employees under its Point of Service company-sponsored and company-administered health insurance plan (POS Plan) for pharmacy-filled prescription contraceptives, such as oral contraceptive pills and transdermal patches, and for intrauterine devices (IUDs), but will exclude all other contraceptives that require or contemplate medical intervention, such as injectables, as will be more fully described in the POS Plan for 2011. The above-described coverage will remain in place for a period of not less than three years, but will remain subject to periodic plan changes and revisions throughout this period.

This settlement resolves a claim for injunctive relief only. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you will be releasing all claims for damages, and all claims for other relief that have been

DBI/63091245.5

1

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 198 Filed 07/17/2009 Page 1 of 3

made, or could have been made, in this Litigation arising out of the allegations made by Plaintiff in this Litigation.
Under the Settlement, Class Counsel are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Class Counsel intend to apply for an award of attorneys' fees and costs and for an incentive award for the named Class Representative for bringing this action and prosecuting it on behalf of the Settlement Class. As part of the Settlement, American Airlines, Inc. will not oppose these requests.
What Are My Legal Rights? If you are a member of the Settlement Class and the Court approves the proposed Settlement and the Settlement becomes effective, you will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and any claims you may have against the Defendant for the conduct alleged in this action will be resolved and released.

How to Object to the Settlement If you are a current employee and you are eligible for benefits under American Airlines, Inc.'s health insurance plans, or are covered, or have been covered, by Defendant's health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of the final approval of the settlement in this litigation, and you wish to object to the Settlement or to Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs and an incentive fee for the named Class Representative, you or your counsel have the right to appear before the Court and object to the Settlement. To do so, however, you must do two things: (1) you must file with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203 on or before September 9,2009 a Notice of Intention to Appear and Object, stating your name, address and telephone number and describing the general nature of your objection(s); and (2) by that same date, you must also serve a copy of such notice, objection, and other supporting papers on
both of the following counsel:
Gordon Ball BALL & SCOTT LAW OFFICES
550 Main Street, Suite 601 Bank of America Center Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Fax: 865-525-4679 Class Counsel

- and-

DBI/6309124S.S

Ronald E. Manthey Melissa M. Hensley MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas, 75201-7347 Counsel for American Airlines, Inc.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 198 Filed 07/17/2009 Page 2 of 3

Any Settlement Class Member who does not submit an objection in the manner provided above shall be deemed to have waived any objection to the Settlement and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to class certification, to the fairness, adequacy or reasonableness of the Settlement, and to any attorneys' fees, costs, or incentive award approved.
Fairness Hearing: A hearing will be held before the Honorable John Nixon in Courtroom 774 at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203 on September 30, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. (the "Fairness Hearing") to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; whether an award of attorneys' fees and/or costs should be made to Class Counsel; and whether an incentive fee should be awarded to the named Class Representative. If you are a current employee and are eligible for benefits under American Airlines, Inc.'s health insurance plans, or are covered, or have been covered, by Defendant's health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of the final approval of the settlement in this litigation you may, but are not required to, attend the Fairness Hearing.
For More Information, or to obtain a copy of the proposed Settlement as described above, you can contact the lawyers representing the Settlement Class: Gordon Ball, Suite 601, Bank of America Center, 550 Main Street, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, Telephone: 865.525.7028, Fax: 865.525-4679, or Email: gball@ballandscott.com.
Please Do Not Contact the Court Or the Clerk of the Court Concerning This Notice

cJ () / Dated:

J /1- ,2009

I

By ~ of the Court

.....

~,t~~~Y'!

JOHN NIXON

-~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

DB 1/630912455

3

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 198 Filed 07/17/2009 Page 3 of 3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLY B. KIVILAAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:04-0814

)

)

Judge Nixon

)

Magistrate Judge Bryant

)

)

MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING
______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and announce to the
Court that through counsel, the parties have reached a settlement. (A copy of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release is attached hereto as Exhibit A).
In accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release and the terms of the proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement, Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an Order granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement, directing notice thereof, and scheduling a final approval hearing (“Fairness Hearing”). (A copy of a [Proposed] Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Stipulation of Settlement and Release).
The Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement provides for the certification of the Settlement Class, fair and reasonable notice to the Settlement Class regarding
DB1/63088573.2

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 1 of 3

the Settlement, the scheduling of a hearing on the fairness and adequacy of the Settlement, and
related matters. (A copy of the Form of Notice is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Stipulation of
Settlement). If granted final approval by the Court, the proposed Final Judgment would resolve
all claims made by Plaintiff and the Settlement Class in this litigation. (A copy of the proposed
Final Judgment is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Stipulation of Settlement and Release).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an Order granting preliminary
approval of the Settlement, certifying the proposed Settlement Class, approving the form and
manner of class notice, and setting a hearing on the fairness of the Settlement.
Respectfully submitted, this 7th day of July, 2009.
/s/W. Gordon Ball______________ W. Gordon Ball, TN BPR # 001135 Ball & Scott Law Offices Suite 601, Bank of America Center 550 Main Street Knoxville, TN 37902 Tel: 865.525.7028
Ted L. Mann, Esquire Robert Potter, Esquire Mann, Cowan & Potter, P.C. 2000-B SouthBridge Parkway, Suite 601 Birmingham, AL 35209 205-879-9661 (tel) 205-879-9663 (fax)
Michael D. Hausfeld Hausfeld LLP 1146 – 19th Street, N.W., Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-579-1089 (tel)
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Settlement Class
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 2 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 7, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Waverly D. Crenshaw, Esquire Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis
511 Union Street, Suite 27000 Nashville, TN 37219-8966 615-244-6380 (tel) 615-244-6804 (fax)
Ronald E. Manthey, Esquire Melissa M. Hensley, Esquire MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201 214-466-4000 (tel) 214-466-4001 (fax)
/s/W. Gordon Ball W. Gordon Ball

DB1/63088573.2

−3−

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 3 of 3

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 1 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 2 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 3 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 4 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 5 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 6 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 7 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 8 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 9 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 10 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 11 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 12 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 13 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 14 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 15 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 16 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 17 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 18 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 19 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 20 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 21 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 22 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 23 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 24 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 25 of 26

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-1 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 26 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLY B. KIVILAAN,

)

Individually and on behalf of all

)

others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

Case No. 3:04-0814

v.

)

)

Judge Nixon

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

)

Magistrate Judge Bryant

)

)

Defendant.

)

________________________________________________________________________

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING __________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, this Court has presided over these proceedings and has reviewed all

pleadings, records and papers on file; and

WHEREAS, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by

and through counsel, and Defendant, American Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”),

have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement and Release dated July 6, 2009 (the “Stipulation”),

which has heretofore been filed with the Court, the recitals and definitions of which Stipulation

is incorporated by reference herein; and

WHEREAS, the Plaintiff and Defendants seek preliminary approval of the Settlement set

forth in the Stipulation, the preliminary certification of the Settlement Class as described in the

Stipulation, approval of a plan and form of notice to the Settlement Class reflecting the terms of

the Settlement, and scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Settlement; and

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING – PAGE 1 DB1/62864208.2

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-2 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 1 of 6

WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the Stipulation and has heard argument in favor of the proposed Settlement; and
WHEREAS, the Court has determined that inquiry should be made as to the fairness and adequacy of the proposed Settlement; and
WHEREAS, the Court has considered the reasonableness of proceeding with the proposed Settlement, and good cause appearing,
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions contained in the Stipulation. 2. The Court finds that the proposed Settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation, is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to authorize dissemination of the Form of Notice (“Notice”), as proposed. 3. For purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
All current female employees of American Airlines, Inc. nationwide who are or were eligible for benefits under American Airlines, Inc.’s health insurance plans, or who are covered, or have been covered, by Defendant’s health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of the final approval of the settlement in this litigation. 4. For purposes of this Order only, the Court preliminarily finds and concludes that certification of the proposed Settlement Class is appropriate. Specifically, the Court finds and concludes that: (a) the Settlement Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members thereof would be impractical; (b) there are questions of law and fact that are common to the
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING – PAGE 2 DB1/62864208.2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-2 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 2 of 6

Settlement Class; (c) the Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class Members; (d) the Plaintiff and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class Members; and (e) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), the Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class.
5. The Court finds that Gordon Ball of the law firm of Ball & Scott, 550 Main Street, Suite 601, Bank of America Center, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902; Michael D. Hausfeld of the law firm of Hausfeld LLP, 1146 – 19th Street, N.W., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20036; Steven Toll of the law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC 20005; and Robert Potter of the law firm of Mann, Cowan & Potter, P.C., 2000B Southbridge Parkway, Suite 601, Birmingham, Alabama 35209 are adequate counsel for the Settlement Class and are thus appointed Class Counsel to represent the interests of the Settlement Class.
6. The proposed form and manner of Notice satisfies the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process and is hereby approved. As provided by the terms of the Stipulation preliminarily approved, the cost and administration of Class Notice shall be the burden of the Defendant, who shall direct Notice to Settlement Class Members via First Class United States mail.
7. Defendant shall cause to be filed with the Clerk of the Court affidavits or declarations of the person under whose general direction the publication of the approved Notice was made, showing that Notice was given in accordance with this Order, which affidavits or declarations shall be filed no later than 5 days before the date of the hearing on final approval of the Settlement (the “Fairness Hearing Date”).
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING – PAGE 3 DB1/62864208.2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-2 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 3 of 6

8. Plaintiff and Defendant shall serve and file papers in support of the Settlement on or before 10 days before the date of the Fairness Hearing Date. No later than 5 days prior to the Fairness Hearing Date, Plaintiff’s Class Counsel shall submit to the Court a complete list of all Settlement Class Members who have filed objections to the Settlement.
9. Objections, if any, to the proposed Settlement shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, and served upon Plaintiff’s Class Counsel and Defendant’s counsel, no later than 30 days after the Notice date. Any interested person may appear at the Fairness Hearing to show cause why the proposed Settlement should or should not be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in good faith and/or why the request of Class Counsel for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs and an incentive award to the Class Representative should or should not be approved as fair and reasonable; provided, however, that no person shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement or the fees, costs, or incentive award unless that person has (a) sent or delivered written objections and copies of any supporting papers and briefs so that they are received no later than ___________________________, 2009, upon counsel below:
Gordon Ball BALL & SCOTT LAW OFFICES
550 Main Street, Suite 601 Bank of America Center Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Fax: 865-525-4679 Class Counsel - and -
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING – PAGE 4 DB1/62864208.2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-2 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 4 of 6

Ronald E. Manthey Melissa M. Hensley MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas, 75201-7347 and (b) filed said objections, papers, and briefs, showing due proof of service upon said counsel with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, on or before the same date. Any Settlement Class Member who does not submit an objection in the manner provided above shall be deemed to have waived any objection to the Settlement and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to class certification, to the fairness, adequacy or reasonableness of the Settlement, and to any attorneys’ fees and costs approved. 10. The parties may serve and file reply papers in further support of the Settlements and in response to objections, if any, no later than five (5) days before the Fairness Hearing Date. 11. The Court will hold a hearing on ________________, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to determine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed Settlement, and whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court and Final Judgment entered thereon (the “Fairness Hearing”). During this hearing, the Court shall consider all evidence and arguments necessary to evaluate the proposed Settlement, and shall also consider any application by Plaintiff’s Class Counsel for an award of attorney’s fees and cost reimbursement, and incentive payments, if any, to the named Plaintiff. The hearing may be continued without further notice to the Settlement Class. 12. During the pendency of this Order the Class Representative and Settlement Class Members are barred and enjoined from bringing or continuing to prosecute any claim, action or cause of action against the Defendant relating to the matters that will be released under the
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING – PAGE 5 DB1/62864208.2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-2 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 5 of 6

Stipulation and proposed Settlement. 13. This Order shall not be construed or deemed to be a finding by this Court or
evidence of a presumption, implication, concession, or admission by the Defendant concerning: (a) any liability, fault, or wrongdoing by American Airlines, Inc.; or (b) the appropriateness of any measure of alleged loss or damages. If the proposed Settlement is not finally approved or consummated for any reason whatsoever, the proposed Settlement and all proceedings had thereon shall be without prejudice to the status quo ante rights of the Parties to this Litigation. In that event, this Order shall be vacated, and all of the status quo ante rights of the Parties shall be restored, including, but not limited to, Defendant’s right to continue to object to certification of a class and/or the merits of Plaintiff’s claims on any available grounds.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ___ day of July , 2009.
_______________________________________ John Nixon Senior District Judge
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING – PAGE 6 DB1/62864208.2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-2 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 6 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Case No. 3:04-0814 – Kivilaan v. American Airlines, Inc. Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
TO: ALL CURRENT FEMALE EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. nationwide who are or were eligible for benefits under American Airlines, Inc.’s health insurance plans, or who are covered, or have been covered, by Defendant’s health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of the final approval of the settlement in this litigation.
Why is this Notice Important? If you are currently a female employee of American Airlines, Inc. and satisfy all of the above requirements for eligibility, you may be a member of a certified class action lawsuit in which a proposed Settlement has been reached. The lawsuit, entitled Kivilaan v. American Airlines, Inc., was brought by class action counsel and alleges that American Airlines, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k) (“PDA”), for discrimination on the basis of sex by failing to provide certain coverage for prescription contraceptives and related services as part of some of its employee benefit plans. American Airlines, Inc. believes that it has good and meritorious defenses against the claims alleged, and denies all liability and any wrongdoing related to the claims asserted in this lawsuit by Plaintiff. American Airlines, Inc. has agreed to settle the Litigation as a compromise to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty associated with further litigation in this matter and to buy its peace. Class Counsel have conducted an investigation into the facts and the law regarding the Litigation and have concluded that this settlement is in the best interest of Plaintiff and the Settlement Class.
This Is Only A Summary Notice. You can log onto www.___________________________ to review a copy of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release and all documents submitted to the Court in connection with preliminary approval, which contain further information about the Settlement.
What Are the Terms of the Settlement?
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and becomes effective, American Airlines has agreed, subject to future plan design, effective January 1, 2011, to offer coverage under its Point of Service company-sponsored and company-administered health insurance plan (POS Plan) for pharmacy-filled prescription contraceptives, such as oral contraceptive pills and transdermal patches, and for intrauterine devices (IUDs), but will exclude all other contraceptives that require or contemplate medical intervention, such as injectables, as will be more fully described in the POS Plan for 2011. The above-described coverage will remain in place for a period of not less than three years, but will remain subject to periodic plan changes and revisions throughout this period.
1
DB1/63091245.3
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-3 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 1 of 3

This settlement resolves a claim for injunctive relief only. You will be releasing all claims for damages, and all claims for other relief that have been made, or could have been made, in this Litigation arising out of the allegations made by Plaintiff in this Litigation.
Under the Settlement, Class Counsel are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Class Counsel intend to apply for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and for an incentive award for the named Class Representative for bringing this action and prosecuting it on behalf of the Settlement Class. As part of the Settlement, American Airlines, Inc. will not oppose these requests.
What Are My Legal Rights? If you are a member of the Settlement Class and the Court approves the proposed Settlement and the Settlement becomes effective, you will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and any claims you may have against the Defendant for the conduct alleged in this action will be resolved and released.
How to Object to the Settlement If you wish to object to the Settlement or to Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, costs and an incentive fee for the named Class Representative, you or your counsel have the right to appear before the Court and object to the Settlement. To do so, however, you must do two things: (1) you must file with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203 on or before ___________________ a Notice of Intention to Appear and Object, stating your name, address and telephone number and describing the general nature of your objection(s); and (2) by that same date, you must also serve a copy of such notice, objection, and other supporting papers on both of the following counsel:
Gordon Ball BALL & SCOTT LAW OFFICES
550 Main Street, Suite 601 Bank of America Center Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Fax: 865-525-4679 Class Counsel

- and -

DB1/63091245.3

Ronald E. Manthey Melissa M. Hensley MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas, 75201-7347 Counsel for American Airlines, Inc.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-3 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 2 of 3

Any Settlement Class Member who does not submit an objection in the manner provided above shall be deemed to have waived any objection to the Settlement and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to class certification, to the fairness, adequacy or reasonableness of the Settlement, and to any attorneys’ fees, costs, or incentive award approved. Fairness Hearing: A hearing will be held before the Honorable John Nixon in Courtroom ___ at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203 on _______________, 2009, at ___ _.m. (the “Fairness Hearing”) to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; whether an award of attorneys’ fees and/or costs should be made to Class Counsel; and whether an incentive fee should be awarded to the named Class Representative. You may, but are not required to, attend the Fairness Hearing.
For More Information, or to obtain a copy of the proposed Settlement as described above, you can contact the lawyers representing the Settlement Class: Gordon Ball, Suite 601, Bank of America Center, 550 Main Street, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, Telephone: 865.525.7028, Fax: 865.525-4679, or Email: gball@ballandscott.com.
Please Do Not Contact the Court Or the Clerk of the Court Concerning This Notice

Dated: ___________________, 2009

By Order of the Court
JOHN NIXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

3
DB1/63091245.3
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-3 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 3 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLY B. KIVILAAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:04-0814

)

)

Judge Nixon

)

Magistrate Judge Bryant

)

)

______________________________________________________________________________

FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT ______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff, Kelly B. Kivilaan (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant, American Airlines, Inc.

(“Defendant”) having executed and filed the “Stipulation of Settlement and Release”

(“Stipulation”) (the recitals and definitions of which are incorporated by reference herein); the

Court having heretofore entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the proposed

Settlement, which conditionally certified the Settlement Class, preliminarily approved the

proposed Settlement, directed the dissemination of notice of the proposed Settlement to the

Settlement Class, and scheduled a hearing to determine whether the proposed Settlement should

be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; class notice having been given; a hearing having

been held on ____________________, 2009 at which all interested and qualified persons were

given an opportunity to be heard; the Court having read and considered all submissions filed in

connection with the proposed Settlement, and the Court having reviewed and considered the

FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT – PAGE 1
DB1/62864219. 2

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-4 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 1 of 5

record herein; IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit and all parties to
the lawsuit. 2. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby
finds and concludes that certification of the proposed Settlement Class is appropriate under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2). Specifically, the Court finds and concludes that the Settlement Class is defined as:
All current female employees of American Airlines, Inc. nationwide who are or were eligible for benefits under American Airlines, Inc.’s health insurance plans, or who are covered, or have been covered, by Defendant’s health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of the final approval of the settlement in this litigation. The Court further finds that (a) these Settlement Class members are so numerous that joinder of all members thereof would be impractical; (b) there is a commonality of interests between the named Plaintiff and Settlement Class members; (c) there are questions of law and fact which are common to the Settlement Class, including the fact that Plaintiff and the Settlement Class rely upon the same alleged course of conduct and theories of liability; (d) the Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other Settlement Class members; (e) the Plaintiff and Class Counsel, who are experienced in class actions, have demonstrated that they will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class members and that Class Counsel are adequate, qualified, experienced and competent to conduct this litigation and to protect the interests of the Settlement Class; and (f) the Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT – PAGE 2
DB1/62864219. 2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-4 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 2 of 5

Settlement Class. 3. As demonstrated by the affidavit(s) or declaration(s) filed in support of class
notice, First Class United States mail notice given to the Settlement Class was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to inform the Settlement Class of (a) the pendency of the class action, (b) all material elements of the proposed Settlement, and (c) the opportunity to object to, or comment, on the Settlement and to appear at the settlement hearing; was due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all Settlement Class members; and complied fully with due process and any other applicable rules of the Court. A full opportunity has been afforded to Settlement Class members to participate in the Fairness Hearing, and all Settlement Class members and any other persons qualified per the terms of the Notice wishing to be heard have been heard.
4. All Settlement Class members are bound by this Final Judgment and by the Courtapproved terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, including the release of claims below and in the Stipulation of Settlement and Release.
5. The Stipulation of Settlement and Release and the fact of settlement are not an admission by the Defendant, nor is this Final Judgment a finding of the validity of any claims in this lawsuit or of any wrongdoing by the Defendant. Furthermore, neither this Final Judgment, the Stipulation of Settlement and Release, nor any document referred to herein nor any action taken to implement the Settlement is, may be construed as, or may be used as, an admission by or against the Defendant or any Settlement Class member of any fault, wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. Entering into or implementing the Settlement and any negotiations or proceedings relating thereto shall not in any event be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of an admission or concession with regard to the denials or defenses by the Defendant, and shall not be offered or
FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT – PAGE 3
DB1/62864219. 2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-4 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 3 of 5

received in evidence in any action or proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal for any purpose whatsoever other than to (a) enforce the provisions of this Final Judgment, the Stipulation of Settlement and Release, or any related agreement or release; or (b) to support a related defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release or other theory of issue preclusion or similar defense.
6. The Settlement embodied in the Stipulation of Settlement and Release is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is hereby finally approved in all respects, and the Plaintiff and Defendant are hereby directed to consummate and perform its terms. Any objections are not well taken and are therefore overruled for the reasons stated by the Court at the Fairness Hearing.
7. The case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs with respect to the Defendant. The approval of the Settlement given by the Court and entry of this Final Judgment fully and without reservation releases and forever discharges the Defendant from any and all manner of claims, actions, suits, liabilities, damages (whether compensatory, punitive or otherwise), and rights and causes of action, known or unknown, whether in law or equity, that any Plaintiff or any Settlement Class member now has or has ever had based upon the matters alleged (or which could have been alleged) in the Complaint in this lawsuit. Each Settlement Class member hereby covenants and agrees that she shall not hereafter seek, and each hereby is enjoined from seeking, to establish liability against the Defendant based, in whole or in part, upon any of the Released Claims.
8. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment, the Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) the Notice; (b) the Settlement; and (c) all other matters relating to the implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and Release.
FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT – PAGE 4
DB1/62864219. 2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-4 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 4 of 5

The Transcript of these Proceedings, which shall be late-filed when prepared, shall be and is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ___ day of ____________________, 2009. _______________________________________ John Nixon Senior District Judge
FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT – PAGE 5
DB1/62864219. 2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 195-4 Filed 07/07/2009 Page 5 of 5

 
 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING – PAGE 1

DB1/62864208.4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLEY B. KIVILAAN, Individually )

and on behalf of all others similarly

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 3:04 - 0814 Judge Nixon Magistrate Judge Bryant

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FAIRNESS HEARING
__________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, this Court has presided over these proceedings and has reviewed all pleadings,

records and papers on file; and

WHEREAS, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and

through counsel, and Defendant, American Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter, the “Defendant”), have

entered into a Stipulation of Settlement and Release dated July 6, 2009 (the “Stipulation”), which

has heretofore been filed with the Court, the recitals and definitions of which Stipulation is

incorporated by reference herein; and

WHEREAS, the Plaintiff and Defendants seek preliminary approval of the Settlement set

forth in the Stipulation, the preliminary certification of the Settlement Class as described in the

Stipulation, approval of a plan and form of notice to the Settlement Class reflecting the terms of the

Settlement, and scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Settlement; and

WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the Stipulation and has heard argument in favor of the

proposed Settlement; and

WHEREAS, the Court has determined that inquiry should be made as to the fairness and

adequacy of the proposed Settlement; and

WHEREAS, the Court has considered the reasonableness of proceeding with the proposed

Settlement, and good cause appearing,

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions contained in the Stipulation.

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 197 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 4

2. The Court finds that the proposed Settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation, is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to authorize dissemination of the Form of Notice (“Notice”), as proposed.
3. For purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
All current female employees of American Airlines, Inc. nationwide who are or were eligible for benefits under American Airlines, Inc.’s health insurance plans, or who are covered, or have been covered, by Defendant’s health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of the final approval of the settlement in this litigation. 4. For purposes of this Order only, the Court preliminarily finds and concludes that certification of the proposed Settlement Class is appropriate. Specifically, the Court finds and concludes that: (a) the Settlement Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members thereof would be impractical; (b) there are questions of law and fact that are common to the Settlement Class; (c) the Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class Members; (d) the Plaintiff and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class Members; and (e) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), the Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class. 5. The Court finds that Gordon Ball of the law firm of Ball & Scott, 550 Main Street, Suite 601, Bank of America Center, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902; Michael D. Hausfeld of the law firm of Hausfeld LLP, 1146 – 19th Street, N.W., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20036; and Robert Potter of the law firm of Mann, Cowan & Potter, P.C., 2000B Southbridge Parkway, Suite 601, Birmingham, Alabama 35209 are adequate counsel for the Settlement Class and are thus appointed Class Counsel to represent the interests of the Settlement Class. 6. The proposed form and manner of Notice satisfies the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process and is hereby approved. As provided by the terms of the Stipulation preliminarily approved, the cost and administration of Class Notice shall be the burden of the Defendant, who shall direct Notice to Settlement Class Members via First Class United States mail. 7. Defendant shall cause to be filed with the Clerk of the Court affidavits or declarations of the person under whose general direction the publication of the approved Notice was made, showing that Notice was given in accordance with this Order, which affidavits or declarations shall be filed no later than 5 days before the date of the hearing on final approval of the Settlement (the
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 197 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 4

“Fairness Hearing Date”). 8. Plaintiff and Defendant shall serve and file papers in support of the Settlement on or
before 10 days before the date of the Fairness Hearing Date. No later than 5 days prior to the Fairness Hearing Date, Plaintiff’s Class Counsel shall submit to the Court a complete list of all Settlement Class Members who have filed objections to the Settlement.
9. Objections, if any, to the proposed Settlement shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, and served upon Plaintiff’s Class Counsel and Defendant’s counsel, no later than 30 days after the Notice date. Any interested person may appear at the Fairness Hearing to show cause why the proposed Settlement should or should not be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in good faith and/or why the request of Class Counsel for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs and an incentive award to the Class Representative should or should not be approved as fair and reasonable; provided, however, that no person shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement or the fees, costs, or incentive award unless that person has (a) sent or delivered written objections and copies of any supporting papers and briefs so that they are received no later than September 9, 2009, upon counsel below:
Gordon Ball BALL & SCOTT LAW OFFICES
550 Main Street, Suite 601 Bank of America Center Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Fax: 865-525-4679 Class Counsel - and -
Ronald E. Manthey Melissa M. Hensley MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas, 75201-7347 and (b) filed said objections, papers, and briefs, showing due proof of service upon said counsel with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, on or before the same date. Any Settlement Class Member who does not submit an objection in the manner provided above shall be deemed to have waived any objection to the Settlement and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to class certification, to the fairness, adequacy or reasonableness of the Settlement, and to any attorneys’ fees and costs approved. 10. The parties may serve and file reply papers in further support of the Settlements and in response to objections, if any, no later than five (5) days before the Fairness Hearing Date. 11. The Court will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September 30, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to determine the fairness,
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 197 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 4

reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed Settlement, and whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court and Final Judgment entered thereon (the “Fairness Hearing”). During this hearing, the Court shall consider all evidence and arguments necessary to evaluate the proposed Settlement, and shall also consider any application by Plaintiff’s Class Counsel for an award of attorney’s fees and cost reimbursement, and incentive payments, if any, to the named Plaintiff. The hearing may be continued without further notice to the Settlement Class.
12. During the pendency of this Order the Class Representative and Settlement Class Members are barred and enjoined from bringing or continuing to prosecute any claim, action or cause of action against the Defendant relating to the matters that will be released under the Stipulation and proposed Settlement.
13. This Order shall not be construed or deemed to be a finding by this Court or evidence of a presumption, implication, concession, or admission by the Defendant concerning: (a) any liability, fault, or wrongdoing by American Airlines, Inc.; or (b) the appropriateness of any measure of alleged loss or damages. If the proposed Settlement is not finally approved or consummated for any reason whatsoever, the proposed Settlement and all proceedings had thereon shall be without prejudice to the status quo ante rights of the Parties to this Litigation. In that event, this Order shall be vacated, and all of the status quo ante rights of the Parties shall be restored, including, but not limited to, Defendant’s right to continue to object to certification of a class and/or the merits of Plaintiff’s claims on any available grounds.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ___ day of July, 2009.
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 197 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 4

 
 •

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLY B. KIVILAAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:04-0814

)

)

Judge Nixon

)

Magistrate Judge Bryant

)

)

FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff, Kelly B. Kivilaan ("Plaintiff'), and Defendant, American Airlines, Inc. ("Defendant") having executed and filed the "Stipulation of Settlement and Release" (the recitals and definitions of which are incorporated by reference herein); the Court having heretofore entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Release, which conditionally certified the Settlement Class (as defined by the Stipulation of Settlement and Release), directed the dissemination of notice of the proposed settlement to the Settlement Class Members (as defined by the Stipulation of Settlement and Release), and scheduled a hearing to determine whether the proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Release should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; class notice having been given; a hearing having been held on September 30, 2009 at which all interested and qualified persons were given an opportunity to be heard; the Court having read and considered all submissions filed 111
FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - PAGE 1
DB 1/63 724693.2

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 204 Filed 09/30/2009 Page 1 of 5

,
"
connection with the proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Release, and the Court having reviewed and considered the record herein;
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit and all parties to the lawsuit. 2. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby finds and concludes that certification of the proposed Settlement Class is appropriate under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2). Specifically, the Court finds and concludes that the Settlement Class is defined as:
All current female employees of American Airlines, Inc. nationwide who are or were eligible for benefits under American Airlines, Inc. 's health insurance plans, or who are covered, or have been covered, by Defendant's health insurance plans at any time between February 18, 2003 and the date of the final approval of the settlement in this litigation. The Court further finds that (a) these Settlement Class members are so numerous that joinder of all members thereof would be impractical; (b) there is a commonality of interests between the named Plaintiff and Settlement Class members; (c) there are questions of law and fact which are common to the Settlement Class, including the fact that Plaintiff and the Settlement Class rely upon the same alleged course of conduct and theories of liability; (d) the Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of other Settlement Class members; (e) the Plaintiff and Class Counsel, who are experienced in class actions, have demonstrated that they will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class members and that Class Counsel are adequate, qualified, experienced and competent to conduct this litigation and to protect the interests of the Settlement
FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - PAGE 2
081163724693.2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 204 Filed 09/30/2009 Page 2 of 5

Class; and (f) the Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Settlement Class.
3. As demonstrated by the affidavit(s) or declaration(s) filed in support of class notice, First Class United States mail notice given to the Settlement Class Members was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to inform the Settlement Class Members of (a) the pendency of the class action, (b) all material elements of the proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Release, and (c) the opportunity to object to, or comment, on the Stipulation of Settlement and Release and to appear at the settlement fairness hearing; was due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all Settlement Class Members; and complied fully with due process and any other applicable rules of the Court. Moreover, a website was established and maintained dedicated to this settlement (www.KivilaanSettlement.com) providing an overview of the settlement and allowing for downloads of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release and related documents submitted to the court in connection with the Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, Directing Notice, and Scheduling Fairness Hearing. The settlement website was operational from August 5, 2009, through today, and was accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to the Settlement Class Members. A full opportunity has been afforded to Settlement Class Members to participate in the Fairness Hearing, and all Settlement Class Members and any other persons qualified per the terms of the Notice wishing to be heard have been heard.
4. All Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final Judgment and by the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release, including the release of claims below, which are approved by the Court.
5. The Stipulation of Settlement and Release and the fact of settlement are not an
FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - PAGE 3
DBJ/63724693.2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 204 Filed 09/30/2009 Page 3 of 5

admission by the Defendant, nor is this Final Judgment a finding of the validity of any claims in this lawsuit or of any wrongdoing by the Defendant. Furthermore, neither this Final Judgment, the Stipulation of Settlement and Release, nor any document referred to herein nor any action taken to implement the settlement is, may be construed as, or may be used as, an admission by or against the Defendant or any Settlement Class Member of any fault, wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. Entering into or implementing the Stipulation of Settlement and Release and any negotiations or proceedings relating thereto shall not in any event be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of an admission or concession with regard to the denials or defenses by the Defendant, and shall not be offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal for any purpose whatsoever other than to (a) enforce the provisions of this Final Judgment, the Stipulation of Settlement and Release, or any related agreement or release; or (b) to support a related defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release or other theory of issue preclusion or similar defense.
6. The settlement embodied in the Stipulation of Settlement and Release is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is hereby finally approved in all respects, and the Plaintiff and Defendant are hereby directed to consummate and perform its terms. Any objections are not well taken and are therefore overruled for the reasons stated by the Court at the Fairness Hearing.
7. The case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs with respect to the Defendant. The approval of the Stipulation of Settlement Agreement and Release given by the Court and entry of this Final Judgment fully and without reservation releases and forever discharges the Released Persons (as defined by the Stipulation of Settlement and Release), individually and collectively, from any and all manner of claims, demands, actions, suits,
FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - PAGE 4
DB 1163724693.2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 204 Filed 09/30/2009 Page 4 of 5

liabilities, damages (whether compensatory, punitive or otherwise), and rights and causes of action, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected whether in law or equity, that Releasors (as defined by the Stipulation of Settlement and Release), or anyone of them, collectively or individually, now has or has ever had prior to the execution of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release relating in any way to the matters or claims arising out of or related to or in connection with the institution or prosecution of this case or alleged (or which could have been alleged) in the Complaint in this lawsuit. Each Settlement Class Member hereby covenants and agrees that she shall not hereafter seek, and each hereby is enjoined from seeking, to establish liability against the Released Parties based, in whole or in part, upon any of the Released Claims (as defined by the Stipulation of Settlement and Release).
8. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment, the Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) the Notice; (b) the Stipulation of Settlement and Release; and (c) all other matters relating to the implementation and enforcement of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release.
The Transcript of these Proceedings, which shall be late-filed when prepared, shall be and is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
n
IT IS SO ORDERED this~{ -day of
I
/;" /It /L,~~
John Nixon Senior District Judge
FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - PAGE 5
DBl/63724693.2
Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 204 Filed 09/30/2009 Page 5 of 5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

KELLY B. KIVILAAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:04-0814

)

)

Judge Nixon

)

Magistrate Judge Bryant

)

)

)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES AND AN INCENTIVE AWARD TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFF

WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement approved by the Court provides that subject to Court-approval, Class Counsel shall receive an award of attorney's fees, costs and expenses not exceeding One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) and that the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) shall be paid to the named Plaintiff as an incentive award;
WHEREAS, the Notice of Pendency of Class Action Settlement (the "Notice") informed Settlement Class members of Class Counsel's intent to apply to the Court for an award of attorney's fees, costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 and for an award to the named Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, and that one purpose of the Final Approval Hearing was to determine whether the application for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and the incentive award should be approved, and provided the procedure for submitting related comments or objections; and

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 205 Filed 09/30/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3703

WHEREAS, the Final Approval Hearing was held on September 30, 2009; no objections

were made to Class Counsel's request for fees, costs and expenses or to the request for an incentive

award to the named Plaintiff; and based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Class Counsel are awarded the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) as their aggregate

reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and that the named Plaintiff shall receive the sum of

$10,000.00 as an incentive award. The Court finds these awards to be reasonable and appropriate

in view ofthe benefits obtained for Plaintiff and the Settlement Class, the risks taken by counsel, the

services provided, and the complexity and difliculty of this case.

THEREFORE, payment ofthe foregoing amounts are directed to be made to Class Counsel

Gordon Ball, who will make appropriate disbursements from the amount awarded to co-counsel and

the named Plaintiff.

D

,

IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ day Of~_L_)_--I-/'-(_}_}'_-_"-"'1.,._J,_'Je._,-_---, _ _ , 2009.

John Nixon Senior District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00814 Document 205 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3704

 
 CASE−CLOSED, CASE−MANAGER−BRYANT, PROTECTIVE−ORDER
U.S. District Court Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04−cv−00814

Kivilaan v. American Airlines Assigned to: Senior Judge John T. Nixon Referred to: Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/10/2004 Date Terminated: 09/30/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kelley B. Kivilaan Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Gordon Ball Ball &Scott 550 W Main Avenue Suite 750 Knoxville, TN 37902 (865) 525−7028 Email: gball@ballandscott.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Llezlie Lloren Green Cohen, Milstein, Sellers &Toll, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4600 Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: lgreen@cohenmilstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Hausfeld Hausfeld LLP 1146 19th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 576−1089 Fax: (202) 747−5713 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ted L. Mann Mann, Cowan &Potter, PC 2000B Southbridge Parkway Suite 601 Birmingham, AL 35209 (205) 879−9661 Email: ted@mcplaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-814

Victoria S. Nugent Cohen, Milstein, Sellers &Toll, PLLC 1100 New York Ave, NW Suite 500 West Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4600 Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: vnugent@cmht.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 1 of 19

Robert Potter Mann, Cowan &Potter, PC 2000B Southbridge Parkway Suite 601 Birmingham, AL 35209 (205) 879−9661 Email: robert@mcplaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant American Airlines, Inc.
Case: 3:04-cv-814

represented by Eva W. Turner Baker &McKenzie 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 2300 Dallas, TX 75201 Email: eva.w.turner@bakernet.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa M. Hensley Morgan, Lewis &Bockius, LLP 1717 Main Street Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 466−4000 Fax: (214) 466−4001 Email: melissa.hensley@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald E. Manthey Morgan, Lewis &Bockius, LLP 1717 Main Street Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 466−4111 Fax: (214) 466−4001 Email: ron.manthey@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stanley E. Graham Waller, Lansden, Dortch &Davis Nashville City Center 511 Union Street Suite 2100 Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 244−6380 Email: sgraham@wallerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Waverly David Crenshaw , Jr. Waller, Lansden, Dortch &Davis Nashville City Center 511 Union Street Suite 2100 Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 244−6380 Email: wcrenshaw@wallerlaw.com As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 2 of 19

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Weyman T. Johnson , Jr. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &Walker 600 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30308−2222 (404) 815−2400 TERMINATED: 06/05/2007

Date Filed

# Docket Text

09/10/2004

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) Filing fee paid in the amount of : 150.00 Receipt # 100812 (hv) (Entered: 09/15/2004)

09/10/2004

2 SUMMONS issued as to deft American Airlines (hv) (Entered: 09/15/2004)

09/10/2004

3 NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference : ICMC set for 10:00 11/1/04 before Magistrate Judge Knowles (hv) (Entered: 09/15/2004)

09/20/2004

4 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon deft American Airlines on 9/16/04; served a copy upon the Registered Agent at CT Corp, 530 Gay St, Knoxville, TN 37902. (hv) (Entered: 09/21/2004)

10/05/2004

PROPOSED Order extending time to answer. (hv) (Entered: 10/05/2004)

10/05/2004

5 CONSENT MOTION by pltf, deft to extend time to answer (hv) (Entered: 10/05/2004)

10/12/2004

6 ORDER by Magistrate Judge E. C. Knowles GRANTING motion to extend time to answer [5−1] until 10/20/04 (cc: all counsel) EOD 10/12/04 (hv) (Entered: 10/12/2004)

10/18/2004

7 CONSENT MOTION extending time for pltf Kelley B. Kivilaan to file mtn for class certification . (w/ att'd proposed order) (dlt) (Entered: 10/18/2004)

10/20/2004

8 ORDER by Magistrate Judge E. C. Knowles granting motion extending time until 11/23/04 for pltf Kelley B. Kivilaan to file mtn for class certification [7−1]. (EOD 10/20/04) (cc: all counsel) (km) (Entered: 10/20/2004)

10/20/2004

9 ANSWER by deft American Airlines to [1−1]. (dlt) (Entered: 10/21/2004)

11/01/2004

PROPOSED Agreed Order re: mtn to transfer venue. (dlt) (Entered: 11/02/2004)

11/09/2004

10 AGREED ORDER by Magistrate Judge E. C. Knowles: Deft is to file a mtn to transfer venue by 12/1/04. Pltf's response shall be filed by 12/22/04. Deft shall have until 1/7/05 to file an optional reply memorandum. W/in 30 days of the final disposition of deft's mtn to transfer venue, the Court will schedule a CMC. EOD 11/10/04 (cc: all counsel) (dlt) (Entered: 11/10/2004)

11/29/2004

11 CONSENT MOTION by deft to extend deadline for motion to transfer venue (w/attached proposed agreed order) (jb) (Entered: 11/29/2004)

11/30/2004

12 ORDER by Magistrate Judge E. C. Knowles granting motion to extend deadline for motion to transfer venue [11−1]. Deft's ddl to file mtn to transfer venue is extended until 12/6/04. Pltf's response shall be filed by 1/6/05. Deft shall have until 1/22/05 to file an optional reply memorandum. EOD 11/30/04 (cc: all counsel) (dlt) (Entered: 11/30/2004)

12/06/2004

13 MOTION by deft American Airlines to transfer venue . (dlt) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

12/06/2004

14 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by deft American Airlines in support of motion to transfer venue [13−1]. (w/ attachments) (dlt) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

12/06/2004

15 DECLARATION of Deborah L. Jameson by deft American Airlines re [13−1]. (dlt) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

12/06/2004

16 DECLARATION of Carol Panke by deft American Airlines re [13−1]. (dlt) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 3 of 19

12/06/2004

17 DECLARATION of Virginia Nisbet by deft American Airlines re [13−1] (dlt) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

12/06/2004

18 DECLARATION of Gayla Coffelt by deft American Airlines re [13−1]. (dlt) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

12/06/2004

19 DECLARATION of Kelly Banda by deft American Airlines re [13−1]. (dlt) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

12/06/2004

20 DECLARATION of Jackie Quick by deft American Airlines re [13−1]. (dlt) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

01/06/2005

21 RESPONSE in opposition by pltf to motion to transfer venue [13−1] (w/attached exhibits A−F) (km) (Entered: 01/06/2005)

01/24/2005

22 REPLY by deft American Airlines to response to motion to transfer venue [13−1]. (dlt) (Entered: 01/25/2005)

08/18/2005

23 ORDER Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/12/2005 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 661 before Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles.Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 8/18/05. (dt) (Entered: 08/18/2005)

09/02/2005

24 MOTION for attorney Victoria Nugent to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kelley B. Kivilaan. Responses due by 9/19/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment# 2 Proposed Order)(Filing Fee Paid)(dt) (Entered: 09/08/2005)

09/07/2005

25 PROPOSED INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (dt) (Entered: 09/08/2005)

09/09/2005

26 Letter from Clerk to Victoria Nugent re: Certificate of Good Standing from the USDC needs to be filed in support of the Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (dt) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

09/12/2005

27 MOTION for attorney John Robert Potter to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kelley B. Kivilaan. Responses due by 9/29/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(PHV Filing Fee Paid on 9/12/05)(dt) (Entered: 09/12/2005)

09/12/2005

28 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING for John Robert Potter from the USDC/NDAL, USDC/MDAL and USDC/SDAL. (dt) (Entered: 09/12/2005)

09/12/2005

29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge E. Clifton Knowles: Case Management Conference held on 9/12/2005. Court declines to enter CMO at this time; original Agreed Order entered into by the parties staying discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Transfer will remain in effect. (Tape #2005−36 MK.) (dt) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

09/13/2005

30 ORDER granting 27 Motion for Robert Potter to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiff. Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 9/13/05. (dt) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

09/28/2005

31 CERTIFICATE of Good Standing for VIctoria S. Nugent from the USDC for the District of Maryland filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (dt) (Entered: 09/28/2005)

10/05/2005

32 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Victoria S. Nugent to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiff. Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 10/5/05. (dt) (Entered: 10/05/2005)

11/18/2005

33 MOTION to Ascertain Status of the Case by Kelley B. Kivilaan. Responses due by 12/5/2005 (dt) (Entered: 11/18/2005)

12/13/2005

34 MEMORANDUM ORDER: As a result, the Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff and denies Defendant's 13 Motion to Change Venue. Signed by Judge John T. Nixon on 12/12/05. (dt) (Entered: 12/13/2005)

12/22/2005

35 MOTION for Reconsideration and Request for Oral Argument by American Airlines, Inc. Responses due by 1/9/06. (Crenshaw, Waverly) Modified Text on 12/27/05 (jb). (Entered: 12/22/2005)

12/22/2005

36 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of 35 Motion for Reconsideration filed by American Airlines, Inc. (Attachment: (1) Exhibit A−Declaration of Vincent Carver)(Crenshaw, Waverly) Modified Text on 12/27/05 (jb). (Entered:

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 4 of 19

12/27/2005
01/10/2006 01/13/2006 03/10/2006 03/23/2006

12/22/2005)
NOTE TO FILER RE: DE #35 &#36: DE #35 is a two part motion filed as a one part motion. In the future, when filing a two part motion (Motion for Reconsideration &Request for Oral Argument), under Motion, select Reconsideration and while holding down the control key, select Hearing. This will highlight both events and create a two part motion. DE #36 is a Memorandum of Law with an attached Declaration. If the Declaration is to be treated as an Original Declaration, to be made part of the record, it should be filed separately using Declaration under other documents. (jb, ) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
37 First MOTION to Amend Agreed Order by Kelley B. Kivilaan. Responses due by 1/27/2006 (Nugent, Victoria) Modified Text on 1/10/2006 (dt). (Entered: 01/10/2006)
38 ORDER granting 37 Motion to Amend Agreed Order entered on 11/1/04. Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 1/13/06. (dt) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
39 MOTION to Ascertain Status of the Case by Kelley B. Kivilaan. Responses due by 3/27/2006 (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
40 ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration and request for oral argument . Signed by Judge John T. Nixon on 3/22/06. (km, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

04/05/2006 04/12/2006
04/12/2006 04/12/2006
04/12/2006 04/12/2006

41 ORDER setting Case Management Conference for 4/17/06 at 11:00 AM. Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/5/06. (gi, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
42 MOTION for attorney Melissa M. Hensley to Appear Pro Hac Vice by American Airlines, Inc.. Responses due by 5/1/2006 (Graham, Stanley) (PHV Fee paid on 4/12/06) Modified Text on 4/12/2006 (dt). (Entered: 04/12/2006)
43 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Graham, Stanley) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
44 MOTION for attorney Ronald E. Manthey to Appear Pro Hac Vice by American Airlines, Inc.. Responses due by 5/1/2006 (Graham, Stanley)(Fee Paid on 4/12/06) Modified Text on 4/12/2006 (dt). (Entered: 04/12/2006)
45 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Graham, Stanley) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
46 RECEIPT #109541 in the amount of $150.00 posted by Waller Lansden for Melissa Hensley and Ronald Manthey, attorneys for American Airlines, Inc. re 42 44 Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (dt) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

04/12/2006 04/17/2006
04/18/2006 04/18/2006 04/24/2006

47 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER filed by all parties. (Graham, Stanley) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge E. Clifton Knowles : Case Management Conference held on 4/17/2006. Proposed Case Mangement Order submitted; parties to amend order and resubmit within 1 week (Tape #2006−18 MK.) (Knoch, Marcia) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
48 ORDER granting 42 Motion for Melissa M. Hensley to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 04/18/06. (dt) Modified Text on 4/26/2006 (dt). (Entered: 04/18/2006)
49 ORDER granting 44 Motion for Ronald E. Manthey to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/18/06. (dt) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
50 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 04/24/2006)

04/25/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 50; In the future, Scanning should be used ONLY for documents that do not exist in electronic format on your computer. Examples of documents that may be scanned are police reports, executed contracts, or documents that contain signatures other than that of the filing user (see section 8 − "Signatures" of our Administrative Practices and Procedures for Electronic Case Filing). This document does not need to be Re−filed unless otherwise directed by

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 5 of 19

04/25/2006 04/26/2006 06/29/2006 07/19/2006 07/19/2006 09/28/2006
11/16/2006 11/16/2006
11/17/2006
01/08/2007 01/17/2007 02/06/2007 02/06/2007

the Court. (km, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
51 NOTICE of Filing by American Airlines, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Initial Case Management Order# 2 Exhibit Letter to Manthey from Nugent)(Crenshaw, Waverly) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald Manthey and Melissa Hensley on behalf of American Airlines, Inc. (Graham, Stanley) Modified Text on 4/27/2006 (dt). (Entered: 04/26/2006)
53 MOTION to Ascertain Status of the Case by Kelley B. Kivilaan. Responses due by 7/17/2006 (Potter, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
54 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 6/30/2006. Discovery due by 7/13/2007. Motions due by 8/1/2007. Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 7/19/06. (km, ) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
55 ORDER granting 53 Motion to Ascertain Status of the case. The Court has entered Deft's version of the Initial Case Management Order . Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 7/19/06. (km, ) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
56 ORDER: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 138−4, the Clerk is directed to reassign this case to Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant. The case remains assigned to District Judge John T. Nixon. Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 9/28/06. (dt) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
57 MOTION to Certify Class by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
58 MEMORANDUM in Support of 57 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A−1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit Exhibit J)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
Note to Filer re DE# 57−58: The proposed order should be filed as a separate attachment to the main document and the mandatory description field used. The mandatory description field should be used to accurately describe the contents of your attachments (labeling as Exhibits A, B, C or Exhibits 1, 2, 3 is not sufficient). This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (dt) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
59 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Extend Deadlines by American Airlines, Inc.(Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 1/9/2007 (dt). (Entered: 01/08/2007)
60 ORDER granting 59 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Deadlines. Discovery deadline reset for 8/24/2007. Dispositive Motions filing deadline reset for 9/12/2007. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 1/17/07. (dt) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
61 RESPONSE to Motion re 57 MOTION to Certify Class filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
62 MEMORANDUM in Support of 61 Response to Motion filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Pl's Depo, Def's Evid. 0001−0043# 2 Exhibit B−James Dec., Def's Evid 0044−46# 3 Exhibit (B)(1)−Plan Exceprts Def's Evid 0047−87# 4 Exhibit B(1)−Plan Excerpts, Def's Evid 0088−114# 5 Exhibit C−Morrison Dec, Def's Evid 0115−117# 6 Exhibit C(1)−Prior Auth Form, Def's Evid 0118# 7 Exhibit D−Geib Dec, Def's Evid 0119−120# 8 Exhibit E−Kissick Dec, Def's Evid 0121−122# 9 Exhibit E(1)−Chart of HMOs, Def's Evid 0123# 10 Exhibit F−Seminara Dec, Def's Evid 0124−125# 11 Exhibit G−Pl's Initial Disclosures, Def's Evid 0126−128# 12 Exhibit H−Ortho TriCyclen pkg, Def's Evid 0129−152# 13 Exhibit H−Ortho TriCyclen, Def's Evid 0153−172# 14 Exhibit I−Plan B, Def's Evid 0173−196# 15 Exhibit I−Plan B, Def's Evid 0197−213# 16 Exhibit J−Pl's Answers to D's Interrogs, Def's Evid 0214−228)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 02/06/2007)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 6 of 19

02/06/2007 02/09/2007
02/12/2007
02/12/2007 02/15/2007 02/16/2007 02/16/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007
03/26/2007
04/05/2007 04/17/2007 04/20/2007

Note to Filer re DE# 62: Signed declarations should be filed as separate events, not as attachments to other pleadings. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (dt) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
63 MOTION for attorney Llezlie L. Green to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Order# 2 Attachment 1 − Certificate of Good Standing from State of NY Supreme Court, # 3 Attachment 2 − Certificate of Good Standing DC# 4 Certificate of Service from District of Columbia Court of Appeals)(Nugent, Victoria) (PHV fee paid on 2/12/07) Modified Text on 2/12/2007 (dt). (Entered: 02/09/2007)
Note to Filer re DE# 63: This document has been scanned. Scanning should be used only for documents that are not created on your computer. The certificate of good standing needs to be from the U.S. District Court. The certificate of good standing must be re−filed. The other documents do not need to be re−filed. (dt) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
64 RECEIPT #113511 in the amount of $75.00 posted by Cohen Milstein Hausfeld for Liezlie Lloren Green, attorney for Kelley B. Kivilaan, re 63 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (dt) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
65 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
66 ORDER granting 63 Motion for Llezlie Lloren Green to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 2/16/07. (dt) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
Llezlie Lloren Green was notified by e−mail to register for an ECF Account. (dt) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
67 MOTION for Leave to Enlarge Page Limit by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
68 REPLY to Response to Motion re 57 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
69 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 68 Reply to Response to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J., Def's Answers Second Set of Interrogs., Pl's Class Reply000087−88# 2 Exhibit K, Email from UHC, Pl.'s Class Reply000089−98# 3 Exhibit L., Kivilaan Dep., Pl.'s Class Reply000097−114# 4 Exhibit M, Pl.'s Answers to First Interrogs, Pl.'s Class Reply000115−121# 5 Exhibit N, MIrena Patient Info., Pl.'s Class Reply000122−129# 6 Exhibit O, Pl.'s Suppl Answers First Interrogs, Pl.'s Class Reply000130−133# 7 Exhibit P, Felde v. City of San Jose, Pl.'s Class Reply000134−137# 8 Exhibit Q, Leonard v. Southtec, Pl.'s Class Reply000138−148# 9 Exhibit R., In re Union Pac. R.R., (D. Neb.), Pl's Class Reply000149−157# 10 Exhibit S, In re Union Pac. R.R. (8th Cir.), Pl.'s Class Reply000158−170)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
Note to Filer re: DE#'s 68−69: The Reply brief should have been filed as an attachment to the Motion for Leave to File, not as a separate entry. The mandatory description field should be used to accurately describe the contents of your attachments (labeling as Exhibit 1, 2, &3 is not sufficient). These documents do not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (dt) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
70 Letter from Clerk to Mr. Ball re compliance with Local Rule 83.01. (Entered: 04/05/2007)
71 Letter from Ronald E. Manthey regarding vacation dates and requesting that nothing be set in this case during that time. (dt) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
72 OPPOSED MOTION for Leave to file Sur−Reply in Opposition to 57 Pltf's Motion for Class Certification by American Airlines, Inc. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit 1 − Defendant's Sup−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (2) Exhibit 2 − "Exhibit K" to Defendant's Sur−Reply (3) Exhibit 3 − "Exhibit L" to Defendant's Sur−Reply (4) Exhibit 4 − "Exhibit M" to Defendant's Sur−Reply

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 7 of 19

04/25/2007 04/25/2007
04/25/2007 04/30/2007 05/07/2007
05/09/2007 05/10/2007
05/17/2007 05/18/2007 05/21/2007

(5) Proposed Order Order Granting Defendant's Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification)(Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 4/20/07 (jb). (Entered: 04/20/2007)
73 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
74 MEMORANDUM in Support of 73 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit A Busler v. Kmart (2) Exhibit B EEOC Decision (3) Exhibit C Employee Benefits Guide (4) Exhibit D Deposition of Deborah Jameson (5) Exhibit E Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions (6) Exhibit F Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Admissions (7) Exhibit G Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (8) Exhibit H FDA Birth Control Guide (9) Exhibit I Medco Prior Authorization Form (10) Exhibit J April 23, 2007 Letter to Melissa Hensley)(Nugent, Victoria) Modified Text on 4/25/07 (jb). (Entered: 04/25/2007)
75 ORDER granting 67 Motion for Leave to Enlarge Page Limit relating to Reply Memorandum in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 4/25/07. (dt) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
76 Letter from Atty Melissa Hensley regarding her vacation schedule. (dt) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
77 RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 MOTION for Leave to re 62 Memorandum in Support,,,,, 68 Reply to Response to Motion, 61 Response to Motion Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sur−reply filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A Deposition of Kelley B. Kivilaan# 2 Exhibit Ex. B Kernan v. Holiday Universal Inc. 1990 WL 289505 (D. MD 1990)# 3 Exhibit Ex. C Deposition of Deborah Jameson# 4 Exhibit Ex. D Defendant's Supplemental and Amended Answers to Interrogatories# 5 Exhibit Ex. E Letter to Ronald Manthey (Dec. 8, 2006)# 6 Exhibit Ex. F Letters to Victoria Nugent (Dec. 15 and 22, 2006)# 7 Exhibit Ex. G Defendant's Second Supplemental and Amended Answers to Interrogatories# 8 Exhibit Ex. H E−mail correspondence between counsel for the parties# 9 Exhibit Exhibit I Message from M. Hensley (March 23, 2007))(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
78 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 74 Memorandum in Support,,, 77 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,, 73 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Graham, Stanley) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
79 ORDER granting 78 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 78 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 74 Memorandum in Support, 77 Response in Opposition to Motion, 73 First MOTION to Compel. Defendant's deadline to file its Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is 5/17/07 and its deadline to file its Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Request for Leave to File a Sur−Reply is 5/22/07. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 5/10/07. (dt) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
80 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 74 Memorandum in Support,,, 77 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,, 73 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Crenshaw, Waverly) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
81 ORDER: Defendant's deadline to file its Response to Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel is 5/21/07 and its deadline to file its Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Request for Leave to File a Sur−Reply is 5/24/07. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 5/18/07. (dt) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
82 RESPONSE to Motion re 73 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Defendant's Discovery Responses# 2 Exhibit B − The first and last pages of the 2005 Flight Attendant Employee Benefit Guide# 3 Exhibit C − Deposition of Deborah Lynn Jameson)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 8 of 19

05/21/2007 05/24/2007
05/29/2007 05/29/2007
05/30/2007 05/30/2007 06/04/2007 06/05/2007 06/11/2007 06/13/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/14/2007

83 DECLARATION of Tricia Herschell filed by American Airlines, Inc. re: 82 Response to Motion,. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
84 REPLY to Response to Motion re 72 MOTION for Leave to re 62 Memorandum in Support,,,,, 68 Reply to Response to Motion, 61 Response to Motion filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures# 2 Exhibit B − Plaintiff's Supplemental Disclosures# 3 Exhibit C − Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Interrogatories# 4 Exhibit D − Excerpts from the Deposition of Kelley Kivilaan# 5 Exhibit E − Excerpt from US District Court Civil Docket in Kernan, et al. v. Holiday Universal, et al.)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
85 MOTION for Leave to Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery Responses by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
86 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support to 85 MOTION for Leave to Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Defendant's Answers and Objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B April 2, 2007 letter to M. Hensley# 3 Exhibit C April 23, 2007 letter to M. Henlsey# 4 Exhibit D Deposition of Deborah Jameson (excerpts))(Nugent, Victoria) Modified Text on 5/30/2007 (dt). (Entered: 05/29/2007)
Note to Filer re Docket Entry No 86: The Reply brief should have been filed as an attachment to the Motion for Leave to File, not as a separate entry. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (dt) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
87 ORDER granting 85 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Reply Memorandum has already been filed, see DE# 86 . Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 5/30/07. (dt) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
88 MOTION to Withdraw Weyman T. Johnson, Jr., as Attorney by American Airlines, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(dt) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
89 ORDER granting 88 Motion to Withdraw Weyman T. Johnson, Jr., as Attorney in this case. Attorney Weyman T. Johnson, Jr terminated. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 6/5/07. (dt) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
90 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Expert Deadlines by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Crenshaw, Waverly) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
91 ORDER granting 90 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by American Airlines, Inc. Expert−related deadlines in this matter are extended as outlined in this order. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 6/13/07. (km, ) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
92 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File to Extend Deadline for filing Summary Judgment Motions by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
93 ORDER granting 92 Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Summary Judgment Motions. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 7/17/07. (jb) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
94 MOTION for attorney Eva W. Turner to Appear Pro Hac Vice by American Airlines, Inc. (Graham, Stanley) (PHV FEE PAID on 8/14/07) Modified Text on 8/10/2007 (dt). Modified Text on 8/14/2007 (dt). (Entered: 08/09/2007)
95 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Graham, Stanley) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
96 RECEIPT #115974 in the amount of $75.00 posted by Waller, Lansden for Eva Turner, attorney for American Airlines, Inc., re 94 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (dt) (Entered: 08/14/2007)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 9 of 19

08/16/2007

97 ORDER granting 94 Motion for Eva W. Turner to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 8/16/07. (dt) (Entered: 08/16/2007)

09/05/2007

98 Consent MOTION to Extend Deadlines by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) Modified Text on 9/5/2007 (dt). (Entered: 09/05/2007)

09/11/2007

99 ORDER granting 98 Consent Motion to Extend Deadlines. Ddl for completion of expert discovery is 10/15/2007 and to file discovery−related motions is 11/6/07. Motions for Summary Judgement to be filed by 12/7/2007. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 9/11/07. (gi, ) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

09/12/2007

100 Letter from Clerk to Atty Michael Hausfeld re Compliance with Local Rule 83.01. (dt) (Entered: 09/12/2007)

09/12/2007

101 Letter from Clerk to Atty Ted Mann re Compliance with Local Rule 83.01. (dt) (Entered: 09/12/2007)

09/20/2007

102 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Confidentiality of Plaintiff's Medical Records by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 09/20/2007)

09/20/2007

103 MEMORANDUM in Support of 102 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Confidentiality of Plaintiff's Medical Records filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Protective Order Governing Confidentiality of Plaintiff's Medical Records. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. A, Letter to M. Hensley (1/30/07)# 2 Exhibit Exh. B, Letter from M. Hensley (4/9/07)# 3 Exhibit Exh. C, Confidentiality Stipulation# 4 Exhibit Exh. D, Letter to M. Hensley (9/4/07)# 5 Exhibit Exh. E, E−mail from M. Hensley (9/18/07)# 6 Exhibit Exh. F, Skinner v. Ashan# 7 Exhibit Exh. G, Republic Services v. Liberty Mutual Insurance)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 09/20/2007)

09/26/2007

104 MOTION for attorney Michael D. Hausfeld to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (PHV FEE PAID on 9/27/07) Modified Text on 9/28/2007 (dt). (Entered: 09/26/2007)

09/26/2007

105 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 09/26/2007)

09/27/2007

106 RECEIPT #116560 in the amount of $75.00 posted by Cohen Milstein for Michael Hausfeld, attorney for Kelley B. Kivilaan, re 104 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (dt) (Entered: 09/27/2007)

10/02/2007

107 ORDER granting 104 Motion for Michael D. Hausfeld to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 10/2/07. (dt) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

10/04/2007

108 RESPONSE in Opposition re 102 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Confidentiality of Plaintiff's Medical Records filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Email from Victoria Nugent to Melissa Hensley dated 9/19/07# 2 Exhibit B − Teri D. Adams v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.# 3 Exhibit C − Schlechter Depo# 4 Exhibit D − Lisa Mann v. University of Cincinnati# 5 Exhibit E − Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's First Request for Production# 6 Exhibit F − Kivilaan Depo# 7 Exhibit G − Door Direct, Inc. v. Nationwide Delivery Systems, LLC# 8 Exhibit H − Jameson Depo)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 10/04/2007)

10/15/2007

109 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Brief in Support of Protective Order by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Potter, Robert) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/16/2007

110 ORDER granting 109 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 102 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Confidentiality of Plaintiff's Medical Records. Replies due by 10/24/2007. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 10/15/07. (dt) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/18/2007

111 MOTION to Supplement Briefing and Evidentiary Record Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and/or Motion for Sanctions by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − AA Employee Benefits Guide for Flight Attendants, Mot. to Supp. 0001−02# 2 Exhibit B − Declaration of Deborah Jameson, Mot. to Supp. 0003−09# 3 Exhibit C − Deposition of Deborah Jameson,

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 10 of 19

Mot. to Supp. 0010−12# 4 Exhibit D − Deposition of Kelley Kivilaan, Mot. to Supp. 0013−19# 5 Exhibit E − Deposition of Dr. Schlechter, Mot. to Supp. 0020−31# 6 Exhibit F − Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, Mot. to Supp. 0032−45# 7 Exhibit G − Defendant's First Request for Production, Mot. to Supp. 0046−61# 8 Exhibit H − Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Interrogatories, Mot. to Supp. 0062−76# 9 Exhibit I −Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's First Request for Production, Mot. to Supp. 0077−90# 10 Exhibit J − Authorization to Disclose Protected Health Information, Mot. to Supp. 0091# 11 Exhibit K − Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order Governing Plaintiff's Medical Records, Mot. to Supp. 0092−98# 12 Exhibit L − May 3, 2007 E−mail from Tanya Copeland to Sheila Lazzara, Mot. to Supp. 0099# 13 Supplement M − July 10, 2007 Email from Tanya Copeland to Sheila Lazzara, Mot. to Supp. 0100# 14 Exhibit N − July 12, 2007 letter from Tanya Copeland to Victoria Nugent, Mot. to Supp. 0101−02# 15 Exhibit O − July 30, 2007 letter from Melissa Hensley to Victoria Nugent, Mot. to Supp. 0103−04# 16 Exhibit P − August 2, 2007 letter from Victoria Nugent to Melissa Hensley, Mot. to Supp. 0105−06# 17 Exhibit Q − Mirtes v. Norfolk Southern Railway case, Mot. to Supp. 0107−08# 18 Errata R − Blackmond v. UT Medical Group case, Mot. to Supp. 0109−10# 19 Exhibit S − Central States v. R−W Service System case, Mot. to Supp. 0111−13)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/18/2007

112 MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/18/2007

113 Sealed Document filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2 − AA/Kivilaan 3196−3225# 2 Exhibit 2 − AA/Kivilaan 3226−3229# 3 Exhibit 2 − AA/Kivilaan 3230−3233# 4 Exhibit 2 − AA/Kivilaan 3234−3241# 5 Exhibit 2 − AA/Kivilaan 3242−3255# 6 Exhibit 2 − AA/Kivilaan 3256−3285# 7 Exhibit 2 − AA/Kivilaan 3286−3315# 8 Exhibit 2 − AA/Kivilaan 3316−3324)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/24/2007

114 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW to Response to 102 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Confidentiality of Plaintiff's Medical Records filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 Protecting the Privacy of Patients' Health Info)(Nugent, Victoria) Modified Text on 10/29/2007 (dt). (Entered: 10/24/2007)

10/24/2007

Note to Filer re Docket Entry No. 114: This document should have been filed using the "Reply to Response to Motion" event. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (dt) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

11/05/2007

115 RESPONSE in Opposition to 111 MOTION to Supplement Briefing and Evidentiary Record Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and/or Motion for Sanctions filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP(a)(1)# 2 Exhibit B. Letter from M. Hensley dated December 6, 2006# 3 Exhibit C. Deposition of Kelley B. Kivilaan# 4 Exhibit D. Letter to M. Hensley dated January 5, 2007# 5 Exhibit E. Letter to M. Hensley dated January 30, 2007# 6 Exhibit F. Letter from M. Hensley dated April 9, 2007# 7 Exhibit G. E−mail to M. Hensley dated April 30, 2007# 8 Exhibit H. Letter from M. Hensley dated July 30, 2007# 9 Exhibit I. Letter from M. Hensley dated January 25, 2007# 10 Exhibit J Deposition of Nicole L. Schlechter MD# 11 Exhibit K. E−mail to M. Hensley dated January 20, 2007)(Nugent, Victoria) Modified Text on 11/6/2007 (dt). (Entered: 11/05/2007)

11/05/2007

116 AFFIDAVIT re 115 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, Affidavit of Robert Potter by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Letter from R. Potter dated June 26, 2006# 2 Exhibit B. Medical Records (filed under seal))(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 11/05/2007)

11/05/2007

117 MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal Plaintiff's Medical Records by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 11/05/2007)

11/05/2007

118 Sealed Document Plaintiff's Medical Records filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 11/05/2007)

11/19/2007

119 CONSENT MOTION to Extend Summary Judgment Deadlines filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 11/20/2007 (dt). (Entered: 11/19/2007)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 11 of 19

11/27/2007

120 ORDER granting 119 MOTION to Extend Summary Judgment Deadlines. Dispositive Motions deadline is reset for 1/11/2008. Response due by 2/25/08 and Reply due by 3/10/08. Signed by Judge John T. Nixon on 11/27/07. (dt) (Entered: 11/27/2007)

12/14/2007

121 NOTICE of Change of Address by Ronald E. Manthey (Manthey, Ronald) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

01/04/2008

Email notification to pro hac vice Atty Michael Hausfeld mandatory registration for ECF account. (dt) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

01/10/2008

122 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Pl's 1st Set of ROGS to Def# 2 Exhibit 2 − Jameson Depo# 3 Exhibit 3 − Nisbet Depo# 4 Exhibit 4 − Coffelt Depo# 5 Exhibit 5 − Kissick Depo# 6 Exhibit 6 − Banda Depo# 7 Exhibit 7 − Def's Answers to Pl's 1st Set of ROGS# 8 Exhibit 8 − Def's Supplemental/Amended Answers to Pl's 1st Set of ROGS# 9 Exhibit A − Defendant's First Amended Answer)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 01/10/2008)

01/10/2008

123 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 01/10/2008)

01/10/2008

124 MOTION for Summary Judgment on First Claim for Relief by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 01/10/2008)

01/10/2008

125 MEMORANDUM in Support of 124 MOTION for Summary Judgment on First Claim for Relief filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1 Employee Benefit Guide, effective through July 28, 2005 (PMSJ 31−82)# 2 Exhibit A−2 EBG I# 3 Exhibit A−3 EBG I# 4 Exhibit B−1 Employee Benefit Guide, effective July 29, 2005 (PMSJ 31−82)# 5 Exhibit B−2 EBG II# 6 Exhibit B−3 EBG II# 7 Exhibit B−4 EBG II# 8 Exhibit B−5 EBG II# 9 Exhibit C Jameson Deposition (PMSJ 178−187)# 10 Exhibit D Kivilaan Deposition (PMSJ 188−205)# 11 Exhibit E Kivilaan Employee History AA/Kivilaan000432# 12 Exhibit F Nisbet Deposition (PMSJ 208−212)# 13 Exhibit G Def.'s Admissions (PMSJ 213−223)# 14 Exhibit Coffelt Deposition (PMSJ 224−228)# 15 Exhibit I Pl.'s Amended Answers to Interrogatories (PMSJ 229−234)# 16 Exhibit J Mirena Product Labeling (PMSJ 235−242)# 17 Exhibit K EEOC Notice of Right to Sue (PMSJ 243−244)# 18 Exhibit L EEOC Decision Dec. 14, 2000 (PMSJ 245−251)# 19 Exhibit M FDA Birth Control Guide (PMSJ 252−259)# 20 Exhibit N Center for Disease Control (PMSJ 260−268)# 21 Exhibit O Wright v. Daimler Chrysler (PMSJ 269−273)# 22 Exhibit P Mauldin v. Wal−Mart (PMSJ 274−287)# 23 Exhibit Q Cummins v. Illinois (PMSJ 288−295)# 24 Exhibit R Alexander v. American Airlines (PMSJ 296−300)# 25 Exhibit S−1 Expert Report of Douglas A. Young (PMSJ 301−346)# 26 Exhibit S−2 Young Expert Report# 27 Exhibit T−1 Declaration of Leon Speroff (PMSJ 347−389)# 28 Exhibit T−2 Speroff Declaration# 29 Exhibit U−1 Dpartment of Health &Human Services Report (PMSJ 390−425)# 30 Exhibit U−2 HHS Report)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 01/10/2008)

01/11/2008

126 MOTION for Summary Judgment by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

01/11/2008

127 MEMORANDUM in Support of 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

01/11/2008

128 DECLARATION of Deborah Jameson filed by American Airlines, Inc. re: 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 127 Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−1 − Employee Benefits Guide, DMSJ 0046−81# 2 Exhibit B−2 − Employee Benefits Guide, DMSJ 0082−128)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

01/11/2008

129 DECLARATION of Pamela Morrison filed by American Airlines, Inc. re: 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 127 Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Prior Auth Request, DMSJ 0132)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

01/11/2008

130 DECLARATION of Michelle Geib filed by American Airlines, Inc. re: 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 127 Memorandum in Support. (Hensley,

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 12 of 19

01/11/2008
01/11/2008 01/11/2008 01/14/2008 01/16/2008 01/29/2008 01/29/2008 01/30/2008 02/01/2008
02/13/2008

Melissa) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
131 STATEMENT of facts Part I in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by American Airlines, Inc. in support of 126 Motion for Summary Judgment, 127 Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Pl's Depo., filed under seal, DMSJ 0001−42# 2 Exhibit B − Jameson Dec., DMSJ 0043−128, filed as a separate document, Docket No. 128# 3 Exhibit C − Morrison Dec., DMSJ 0129−132, filed as a separate document, Docket No. 129# 4 Exhibit D − Geib Dec., DMSJ 0133−134, filed as a separate document, Docket No. 130# 5 Exhibit E − Nisbet Depo., DMSJ 0135−156# 6 Exhibit F − Kissick Depo., DMSJ 0157−173# 7 Exhibit G − Banda Depo., DMSJ 0174−186# 8 Exhibit H − Physician's Packet Insert, DMSJ 0187−230# 9 Exhibit I − D's Supp/Amend Answers to Pl's First Set of ROGS, DMSJ 0231−243# 10 Exhibit J − Jameson Depo., DMSJ 0244−272# 11 Exhibit K − Schlechter Depo., filed under seal, DMSJ 0273−342# 12 Exhibit L − Lambert Depo., DMSJ 0343−377# 13 Exhibit M − Speroff Depo., DMSJ 0378−406# 14 Exhibit N − Lowry Expert Report, DMSJ 0407−430# 15 Exhibit O − Lowry Depo Excerpts, DMSJ 0431−439)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
132 MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal Statement of Facts Part II and Exhibits A and K by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
133 Sealed Document Statement of Unopposed Facts, Part II, and Exhibits A and K filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiff's Depo., DMSJ 0001−42# 2 Exhibit K −1 − Schlechter Depo., DMSJ 0273−300.1# 3 Exhibit K−2 − Schlechter Depo., DMSJ 0301−342)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
134 ORDER granting 123 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 1/14/08. (dt) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
135 CORRECTED STATEMENT of Undisputed Material Facts filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan in support of 124 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Nugent, Victoria) Modified Text on 1/16/2008 (dt). (Entered: 01/16/2008)
136 ORDER granting 112 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 1/29/08. (dt) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
137 ORDER granting 132 Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 1/29/08. (dt) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
138 RESPONSE in Opposition re 122 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Deposition of Gayla Coffelt (PODMLA 18−22)# 2 Exhibit 2 Deposition of Virgina Nisbet (PODMLA 23−32)# 3 Exhibit 3 Expert Report of Robert H. Dobson (PODMLA 33−37))(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
139 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendant's Motion to Supplement Briefing and Evidentiary Record Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and/or Motion for Sanctions by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Defendant's Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion to Supplement Briefing and Evidentiary Record Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and/or Motion for Sanctions# 2 Exhibit T − Schlechter depo excerpts# 3 Proposed Order Order Granting Defendant's Opposed Motion for Leave)(Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
140 REPLY to Response to 122 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 10 − Defendant's Answers and Objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission# 2 Exhibit 11 − Medco Documents# 3 Exhibit 12 − Morrison Deposition Excerpts# 4 Exhibit 13 − Plaintiff's Notices of Deposition Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6))(Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 2/14/2008 (dt). (Entered: 02/13/2008)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 13 of 19

02/14/2008
02/14/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/20/2008
02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008
02/25/2008 02/25/2008

141 MOTION for attorney Ted L. Mann to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate# 2 Exhibit Certificate# 3 Exhibit Certificate# 4 Exhibit Certificate# 5 Exhibit Certificate# 6 Proposed Order Granting Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice) (PHV FEE PAID on 2/15/08) (Ball, Gordon) Modified Text on 2/15/2008 (dt). Modified Text on 2/15/2008 (dt). (Entered: 02/14/2008)
142 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief re 140 Reply to Response to Motion, by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 2/15/2008 (dt). (Entered: 02/14/2008)
Note to Filer re Docket Entry No. 141: Certificates of good standing should be filed as separate events, not as attachments to a document. These documents do not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (dt) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
143 RECEIPT #34675−1384 in the amount of $75.00 posted by Mann, Cowan &Potter, P.C. for Ted L. Mann, attorney for Kelley B. Kivilaan, re 141 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (dt) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
144 ORDER granting 141 Motion for Atty Ted L. Mann to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 2/19/08. (gi) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
Email notification to Atty Mann re mandatory registration for a CM/ECF account. (gi) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
145 RESPONSE in Opposition re 139 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendant's Motion to Supplement Briefing and Evidentiary Record Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and/or Motion for Sanctions Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Supplement Briefing and Evidentiary Record Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Briefing and/or Motions for Sanctions filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1− E−mail from M. Hensley dated Nov. 15, 2007# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2− E−mail from M. Hensley dated Nov. 28, 2007# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 E−mail from M. Hensley dated Feb. 1, 2008)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
146 ORDER granting 142 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 2/25/08. (dt) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
147 RESPONSE in Opposition re 124 MOTION for Summary Judgment on First Claim for Relief filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
148 RESPONSE to 135 CORRECTED STATEMENT of Undisputed Material Facts filed by American Airlines, Inc. (Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 2/26/2008 (dt). (Entered: 02/25/2008)
149 MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal (Defendant's Statement of Additional Material Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Part II by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
150 RESPONSE to Motion re 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Unopposed Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment −− Part I filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 E−mail from M. Geib of United Health Care dated January 2007# 2 Exhibit 2 Deposition of Dr. Suzanne Lowry# 3 Exhibit 3 Deposition of Gayla Coffelt)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
151 **FILED IN ERROR−ATTY TO RE−FILE CORRECT STATEMENT UNDER SEAL** Sealed Document (Defendant's Statement of Additional Material Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Part II filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 2/26/2008 (dt). (Entered: 02/25/2008)
152 MOTION to Strike 125 Memorandum in Support,,,,,, (Inadmissible Evidence Offered in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by American

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 14 of 19

02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/26/2008 02/26/2008 02/28/2008
02/29/2008 02/29/2008 02/29/2008 03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/07/2008

Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
153 MOTION for Leave to Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Conditional Seal Response to Defendant's Statement of Unopposed Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment −− Part II by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
154 Sealed Document Deposition of Dr. Nichole Schlechter filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
155 Sealed Document Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Unopposed Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment −− Part II filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
156 RESPONSE in Opposition re 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
157 AFFIDAVIT of Victoria S. Nugent in Opposition to 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment and request for Continuance Under Rule 56(f) filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) Modified Text on 2/26/2008 (dt). (Entered: 02/25/2008)
STATEMENT of Additional Material Facts in support of 147 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by American Airlines, Inc. (Filed for Court Tracking Purposes, See DE# 148 for PDF) (dt) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
Note to Filer re Docket Entry No. 148: Two events are contained in one document. Therefore, each must be docketed separately, which the Clerk's Office has done. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (dt) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
158 Sealed Document (Defendant's Statement of Additional Material Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Part II filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
159 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to 145 Response in Opposition to Motion by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − D's Reply Brief to Pl's Opposition to D's Mtn for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of D's Mtn to Supplement Briefing and Evidentiary Record Regarding Pl's Motion for Class Certification Briefing and/or Mtn for Sanctions# 2 Exhibit A − Hensley Declaration)(Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 2/28/2008 (dt). (Entered: 02/28/2008)
Note to Filer re Docket Entry No. 159: Signed declarations should be filed as a separate event, not as attachment to other pleadings. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (dt) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
160 ORDER granting 149 Motion for Leave to File Statement of Additional Material Facts Under Seal. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 2/29/08. (dt) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
161 ORDER granting 153 Motion for Leave to File Under Conditional Seal Response to Statement of Unopposed Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgement−Part II. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 2/29/08. (dt) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
162 ORDER granting 159 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 3/3/08. (dt) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
163 REPLY to Response to 139 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendant's Motion to Supplement Briefing and Evidentiary Record Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and/or Motion for Sanctions filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (dt) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
164 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Briefs in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment by Kelley B. Kivilaan, American Airlines, Inc.. (Crenshaw, Waverly) (Entered: 03/07/2008)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 15 of 19

03/07/2008

165 ORDER granting 164 Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Reply Briefs in support of Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 3/7/08. (jb) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

03/11/2008

166 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply Briefs in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment by Kelley B. Kivilaan, American Airlines, Inc.. (Crenshaw, Waverly) (Entered: 03/11/2008)

03/12/2008

167 RESPONSE in Opposition Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Strike Inadmissible Evidence Offered In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A− Taulbee v. Wal−Mart Stores, Inc.# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − George v. Ford Motor Company)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/12/2008

168 MOTION to Strike 156 Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike Inadmissible Evidence Offered by Plaintiff in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/12/2008

169 REPLY to Response to Motion re 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/12/2008

170 RESPONSE filed by American Airlines, Inc. to 150 Statement of Additional Material Facts filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 3/13/2008 (dt). (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/12/2008

171 REPLY to Response to Motion re 124 MOTION for Summary Judgment on First Claim for Relief Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on First Claim for Relief filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 S.21 Prevention First Act# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Insurance COverage Bills Tracking Reports 1997−2007# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 H.R. 2412 Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Act of 2007)(Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/12/2008

172 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 171 Reply to Response to Motion,. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/12/2008

173 REPLY to Response to 135 Corrected Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) Modified Text on 3/13/2008 (dt). (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/12/2008

174 MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Considtional Seal Reply to Defendant's Statement of Additional Material Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment − Part II by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/12/2008

175 Sealed Document Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Statement of Additional Material Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Part II filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Nugent, Victoria) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

03/12/2008

RESPONSE filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan to 131 Statement of Additional Material Facts filed by American Airlines. (IN−COURT TRACKING PURPOSES, SEE DE# 173 FOR PDF DOCUMENT) (dt) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

03/28/2008

176 ORDER: For the reasons stated within this order, plaintiff's Motion to Compel 73 is Granted In Part and Denied In Part. Signed by Judge John S. Bryant on 3/28/08. (dt) (Entered: 03/28/2008)

03/28/2008

177 RESPONSE in Opposition re 168 MOTION to Strike 156 Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike Inadmissible Evidence Offered by Plaintiff in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Strike Inadmissible Evidence Offered By Plaintiff In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgement And Brief In Support Thereof filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Taulbee v. Wal−Mart Stores, Inc.# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − George v Ford Motor Company)(Green, Llezlie) (Entered: 03/28/2008)

04/11/2008

178 MOTION for Reconsideration of 176 Order on Motion to Compel by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Declaration of Cynthia Valencia, # 2 Exhibit B, Declaration of Vicki Fox)(Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 16 of 19

04/14/2008 04/25/2008 05/19/2008 05/30/2008 06/04/2008 07/14/2008 09/23/2008
09/24/2008 09/24/2008 10/17/2008
11/04/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/17/2008
06/04/2009

4/14/2008 (dt). (Entered: 04/11/2008)
Note to Filer re Docket Entry No. 178: Signed declarations should be filed as separate events, not as attachments to other pleadings. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (dt) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
179 ORDER granting 174 Motion for Leave to File Under Considtional Seal Reply to Defendant's Statement of Additional Material Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment − Part II. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 4/25/08. (dt) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
180 Letter from Attorney Melissa Hensley. (dt) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
181 Joint MOTION to Stay 178 MOTION for Reconsideration of 176 Order on Motion to Compel by American Airlines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order granting joint motion to stay)(Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 6/2/2008 (dt). (Entered: 05/30/2008)
182 ORDER granting 181 Motion to Stay 178 MOTION for Reconsideration. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby stayed. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 6/4/08. (dt) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
183 Letter from Atty Ronald E. Manthey re vacation notice. (dt) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
184 ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order 102 is Granted. This ruling is without prejudice to defendant's right to raise by motion the confidential status of the subject medical records following the Court's ruling on the pending motions for class certification and summary judgment. Consistent with the foregoing, and with earlier rulings on similar motions, plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Medical Records Under Seal 117 is Granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 9/23/08. (dt) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
185 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated within this order, the Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer 122 is Granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 9/24/08. (dt) Modified Text on 9/24/2008 (dt). (Entered: 09/24/2008)
186 FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to 1 Complaint by American Airlines, Inc.. (dt) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
187 ORDER: For the reasons stated within this order, Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply 72 is Denied and the Court declines to strike Plaintiff's Response 77 . As such, the Court will not consider Defendant's proposed Sur−Reply 84 in its decision whether to grant Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class 57 . Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 10/17/08. (dt) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
188 MOTION for Reconsideration 187 Order Denying Defendant's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) Modified Text on 11/5/2008 (dt). (Entered: 11/04/2008)
189 NOTICE by Kelley B. Kivilaan Change of Firm Affiliation (Ball, Gordon) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
190 NOTICE by Kelley B. Kivilaan Substitution of Counsel (Ball, Gordon) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
Note to Filer re Docket Entry Nos. 189−190: Pursuant to court policy and procedure, Certificates of Service must include the names and full addresses for all persons served (whether served electronically or by other means), what was served, method of service and date of service. (See Local Rule 5.01.) Please file a conformed Certificate of Service for this document. (dt) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
191 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Class Action Complaint)(Ball, Gordon) Modified Text on 6/5/2009 (dt). (Entered: 06/04/2009)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 17 of 19

06/10/2009

192 ORDER granting 191 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 6/9/09. (dt) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

06/10/2009

193 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against American Airlines, Inc., filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan.(dt) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

06/24/2009

194 ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 7/8/2009 at 1:00 PM before Senior Judge John T. Nixon. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 6/24/09. (dt) (Entered: 06/24/2009)

07/07/2009

195 MOTION for Order Granting Prliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, Directing Notice, and Scheduling Fairness Hearing by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Executed Settlement Agreement and Release, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Form of Preliminary Approval Order, # 3 Exhibit Proposed Form of Class Notice, # 4 Exhibit Proposed Form of Final Judgment)(Ball, Gordon) Modified Text on 7/7/2009 (dt). (Entered: 07/07/2009)

07/09/2009

196 ORDER: As a result of the Proposed Settlement, the following 10 Motions pending before the Court are rendered Moot: Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class 57 ; Defendant's Motion to Supplement 111 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 124 ; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 126 ; Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Reply 139 ; Defendant's Motion to Strike Evidence in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 152 ; Joint Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages 166 ; Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response 168 ; Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order on Motion to Compel 178 ; and Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Defendant's Leave to File a Sur−Reply 188 . Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 7/9/09. (dt) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

07/10/2009

197 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE AND SCHEDULING FARINESS HEARING: Fairness Hearing is set for 9/30/2009 01:00 PM in Courtroom 774 before Senior Judge John T. Nixon. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 07/10/09. (ab) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/17/2009

198 ORDER re Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 7/17/09. (km) (Entered: 07/17/2009)

09/17/2009

199 DECLARATION of Lance P. Blair Regarding Class Notice filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/18/2009

Note to filer re DE 199 : Pursuant to Court Policy and Procedure and Local Rule 5.01, Certificates of Service must include the names and full addresses for all persons served (whether served electronically or by other means), what was served, method of service, and date of service. THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SHALL BE RE−FILED. (dt) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

09/18/2009

200 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service Re Declaration of Lance P. Blair filed by American Airlines, Inc.. (Hensley, Melissa) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

09/22/2009

201 Final MOTION for Order Granting Final Approval of Proposed Settlement filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Ball, Gordon) Modified Text on 9/23/2009 (dt). (Entered: 09/22/2009)

09/22/2009

202 MEMORANDUM in Support of 201 Final MOTION for Order Granting Final Approval of Proposed Settlement filed by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Ball, Gordon) Modified Text on 9/23/2009 (dt). (Entered: 09/22/2009)

09/24/2009

203 MOTION for Attorney Fees Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses and An Incentive Award for the Named Plaintiff and Class Representative by Kelley B. Kivilaan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Gordon Ball)(Ball, Gordon) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/30/2009

204 FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 9/30/09. (dt) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

205 ORDER granting 203 Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses and an Incentive Award to the named Plaintiff. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 9/30/09. (dt) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 18 of 19

09/30/2009

206 Final judgment is hereby entered for purposes of Rule 58 and/or Rule 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on 9/30/09 by dt. (dt) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

Case: 3:04-cv-814 As of: 10/29/2012 11:52 AM CDT 19 of 19