IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

GODWIN AKIO, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, )

MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, MARTIN NWOGA)

and ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI,

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 04-4531 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT

Plaintiff-Intervenors Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin

Nwoga and Onyebuchim Onyeanusi seek to intervene in this action brought in their names and

on behalf of others similarly situated by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission in order to assert their Claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as

amended,42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”), the Civil Rights Act of 1870, as amended, 29 U.S.C.

A. §1981 (§1981) and under the Pennsylvania Human Relation Act, 43 P.S.A. §951 (“PHRA”)

as a result of discrimination in employment practices on the basis of national origin (African) by

Defendant, Northwestern Human Services (“NHS”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345.

-1-

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff- Intervenors Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi are all African-born legal residents of the United States of America, and were at all relevant times “employees” or “contractors” of Defendant Northwestern Human Services, as those terms are defined in Title VII and the PRHA. 4. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Defendant, Northwestern Human Services (the “Employer”), has continuously been doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. Plaintiff-Intervenors Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi have each filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission alleging violations of Title VII based upon their National Origin by Defendant Employer of which their employer was on notice. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Each of the Plaintiff-Intervenors were born in Africa. 8. Plaintiff-Intervenors are and at all relevant times were legally resident in the United States and was eligible for employment under all relevant state and federal laws.
-2-

9. Plaintiff-Intervenors worked as a Behavioral Specialist Consultants and Mobile Therapists in Defendant Employer’s Behavioral Health Program.
10. Defendant Employer’s behavioral health program is managed by Community Behavioral Health (“CBH”), a non-profit corporation under contract with the city of Philadelphia to provide Medicaid reimbursed mental health and substance abuse treatment services to Medicaid recipients in Philadelphia County. CBH in turn has contracted with almost 300 area treatment providers, offering the full spectrum of services to adults, children and adolescents.
11. The CBH Credentialing Manual provides that a properly credentialed Behavioral Specialist Consultant must be either a psychologist licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or possess a master’s degree from an accredited university in a clinical mental health discipline. The CBH Credentialing Manual also provides that other degrees may be considered, but the course work must include twelve (12) master’s degree behavioral health credits.
12. In April 2002, CBH performed an audit of Defendant Employer’s personnel files to determine whether employees were in compliance with CBH’s Credentialing Manual.
13. As a result of CBH’s audit, Defendant Employer reviewed all personnel files of the Behavioral Specialist Consultants and Mobile Therapists to determine whether these employees possessed the proper credentials in accordance with CBH’s Credentialing Manual.
14. In January 2003, Defendant Employer hired Rhonda Matlack (white/non-African born) as Program Director of the Behavioral Health Program.
15. In early January 2003, Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage and Mohammed Magzoob all received a letter from Defendant Employer’s Clinical Supervisor, Donna Conwell, stating that their educational transcript had been reviewed and that they needed to submit, by
-3-

January 17, 2003, an educational plan to obtain additional educational credits in accordance with the C.H. Credentialing Manual.
16. Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage and Mohammed Magzoob timely complied with Donna Conwell’s request for submission of an educational plan.
17. Despite complying with Donna Conwell’s request, Rhonda Matlack terminated Mohammed Magzoob in February 2003, allegedly because he did not possess the proper credentials.
18. Despite complying with Donna Conwell’s request, Rhonda Matlack terminated Godwin Akiko and Izzeldeen Elhage in May 2003, allegedly because they did not possess the proper credentials.
19. Plaintiff-Intervener are informed and believe and thereupon allege that a class of similarly situated African born Behavioral Specialist Consultants and Mobile Therapist also timely submitted educational plans, but were subjected to discrimination based on their national origin when Rhonda Matlack terminated their employment for allegedly failing to possess the proper credentials.
20. Unlike Plaintiff-Intervener, non-African born employees who did not possess the proper credentials were not terminated. Instead, the non-African Behavioral Specialist Consultants and Mobile Therapists were allowed to submit an educational plan and given substantial time to complete any needed educational credits.
21. Martin Nwoga and Onyebuchim Oyeanusi, were born in Africa, and worked as Behavioral Specialist Consultants and Mobile Therapists in Defendant Employer’s Behavioral Health Program.
-4-

22. Martin Nwoga and Onyebuchim Oyeanusi possessed or had submitted plans to acquire adequate credentials as described above.
23. Despite their being qualified for their positions, Defendant Employer has systematically reduced and/or eliminated the number of cases and hours worked for Martin Nwoga and Onyebuchim Oyeanusi.
24. Onyebuchim Oyeanusi has not received any cases or work hours from Defendant Employer since October 2002.
25. Martin Nwoga has not received any cases or work hours from Defendant Employer since December 2002.
26. Plaintiff-Intervener are informed and believe and thereupon allege that similarly situated African born Behavioral Specialist Consultants and Mobile Therapist were also subjected to disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment on the basis of their national origin when they had their number of cases and work hours reduced.
27. Other non-African born Behavioral Specialist Consultants and Mobile Therapists have continued to receive cases and work hours since October 2002.
28. Indeed, Plaintiff-Intervener are informed and believe and thereupon allege that non-African born individuals with similar or lessor qualifications have been increased in their caseloads and/or have been hired subsequent for positions held by Plaintiff-Intervenors subsequent to the events described above.
29. The effect of the practices complained above has been to deprive PlaintiffIntervener Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi employment opportunities and otherwise affect adversely their status as employees because of their national origin.
-5-

30. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 31. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi, and to other similarly situated employees.
COUNT I VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
32. Plaintiff incorporates as if fully stated the allegations of the preceding paragraphs. 33. By intentionally, wilfully and deliberately subjecting the Plaintiff-Intervener to discrimination based upon national origin, Defendant, through its agents, representative and employees, violated Title VII. Wherefore, Plaintiff-Intervener pray for the following relief: a) Order Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff-Intervener to the positions which they would have had he not been subjected to unlawful discrimination, together with all compensation, benefits and job opportunities incident thereto; b) Order Defendant to compensate Plaintiff-Intervener for the full value of compensation and benefits they he would have received had he not been the victims unlawful discrimination; c) Enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiff -Intervener and against Defendant for compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII; d) Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from discriminating against Plaintiff-Intervener in any manner that violates Title VII;
-6-

e) Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff-Intervener the costs and expenses of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and
f) Grant Plaintiff-Intervener such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF § 1981 34. Plaintiff incorporates as if fully stated the allegations of the preceding paragraphs. 35. By intentionally, wilfully and deliberately discriminating against PlaintiffIntervener because of their national origin, Defendant, through its agents, representative and employees, violated the Civil Rights Act of 1870, as amended, 29 U.S.C. A. §1981. Wherefore, Plaintiff-Intervener pray for the following relief: a) Order Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff-Intervener to the position which they would have had they not been subjected to unlawful discrimination, together with all compensation, benefits and job opportunities incident thereto; b) Order Defendant to compensate Plaintiff-Intervener for the full value of compensation and benefits they would have received had they not been the victim of unlawful discrimination, with interest thereon; c) Enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Intervener and against Defendant for compensatory and liquidated damages. d) Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from discriminating against Plaintiff in any manner that violates Plaintiff-Intervenors’ civil rights; e) Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff the costs and expenses of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and witness fees under 29 U.S.C. §1988 ; and
-7-

f) Grant Plaintiff such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT III VIOLATION OF P H R A 36. Plaintiff-Intervener incorporate as if fully stated the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 37. By intentionally, wilfully and deliberately discriminating against PlaintiffIntervener because of their national origin, Defendant, through its agents, representatives, and employees, violated the PARA. Wherefore, Plaintiff pray for the following relief: a) Order Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff-Intervener to the positions which he would have had he not been unlawfully harassed and terminated, together with all compensation, benefits and job opportunities incident thereto; b) Order Defendant to compensate Plaintiff-Intervener for the full value of compensation and benefits he would have received had he not been the victims of race and age discrimination, with interest thereon; c) Enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Intervener and against Defendant for compensatory damages under the PARA; d) Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from discriminating against Plaintiff-Intervener in any manner that violates the PARA; e) Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff-Intervener the costs and expenses of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and f) Grant Plaintiff-Intervener such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
-8-

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff-Intervenors demand trial by jury on all counts of this complaint.

Date:

/s/ND870
_________________________________ Nancy C. DeMis, Esq. Dena B. Calo, Esq. Gallagher, Schoenfeld, Surkin & Chupein, P.C. 25 West Second Street Media, PA 19063-0900 (610) 565-4600 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga and Onyebuchim Onyeanusi

-9-

 
 1-1;J~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-4531
~~lEO

CONSENT DECREE
 Introduction

A. This action was instituted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the EEOC" or "the Commission") on September 27,2004 against Northwestern Human Services ("Northwestern") to enforce provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). The Commission alleged that Northwestern terminated Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob and a class of similarly situated employees, based on their national origin, African. The Commission also alleged Northwestern subjected Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi and a class of similarly situated employees to disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment based on their national origin, African. The Commission, through pretrial discovery, identified and limited the "class of similarly situated employees" to Abboud Wali, Ibrahim Mohammed and Osman Osman. Northwestern denies all of these allegations.

-1­

B. This Consent Decree is entered into by and shall be final and binding between the EEOC and Northwestern, its directors, officers, agents, successors and assigns.
C. The EEOC and Northwestern agree to entry of this Consent Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint filed on behalf of Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusiand a class of similarly situated employees, including Abboud Wali, Ibrahim Mohammed and Osman Osman (civil case no. 2:04-cv-04531-RBS). This Consent Decree shall not constitute either an adjudication of or finding on the merits of the complaint and shall not be construed as an admission by Northwestern of any violation of Title VIT. Northwestern expressly denies any wrongdoing in this matter, and this Decree shall, under no circumstances, be construed or deemed to be evidence or admitted as evidence of (i) any wrongdoing, fault, or liability; or (ii) any infirmity in the defenses that Northwestern asserted.
Findings D. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds: (1) it has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter jurisdiction of this action; and (2) the terms of this Decree are fair, reasonable, equitable and just, and adequately protect the rights of the parties and the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
Non-Discrimination and Non-Retaliation 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action. 2. Northwestern is enjoined from discrimination against any employee on the basis
-2­

of national origin in violation of Title VII. 3. Northwestern is enjoined from engaging in any employment practices which
retaliate in any manner against any person because of that person's opposition to any practice made an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.
4. Northwestern shall not divulge, directly or indirectly, to any identifiable employer or potential employer of any identified class member, any of the facts or circumstances related to the claims of discrimination against Northwestern in this case or any of the events relating to the participation any person in the litigation of this action, unless required to do so pursuant to an Order from a Court of competent jurisdiction.
5. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations of Northwestern under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charge of discrimination now pending or filed in the future against Northwestern.
Duration of the Decree 6. The Consent Decree shall be in effect for a period of three (3) years from the date it is entered by the Court.
Monetary Relief 7. Northwestern agrees to pay Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi, Ibrahim Mohammed, Osman Osman and Abboud Wali the sum total of Six Hundred Thousand dollars ($600,000.00), minus all lawful
-3­

deduction's and attorney's fees within twenty-one (21) calendar days after receipt of a Settlement Agreement and Release executed by each claimant and the Court's entry of an order approving this Consent Decree. This sum was agreed upon by the parties in order to resolve this matter without need for further litigation. The settlement funds will be allocated between Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi, Ibrahim Mohammed, Osman Osman and Abboud Wali as set forth in Exhibit 1 (attached). The check(s) will be mailed to Nancy DeMis, Esquire, Gallagher, Schoenfeld, Surkin, Chupein & DeMis, 25 West Second Street, Media, PA 19422. Northwestern shall mail a copy of the check(s) to the attention of Terrence R. Cook, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, 21 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515 concurrent with the mailing of the check to Nancy DeMis, Esq. Northwestern shall also provide to the Commission any return receipts returned by the United States Postal Service.
In order to receive the monetary relief set forth above,Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi, Ibrahim Mohammed, Osman Osman and Abboud Wali will each be required to execute a Release as presented by Northwestern.
Posting of Notice 8. Within 20 business days after entry of this Decree, Northwestern shall post on all bulletin boards, used by Northwestern for communicating with employees at its corporate offices, satellite office, and all residential facilities, a same-sized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit 2 to this Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for three (3) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Northwestern shall provide to the attention of Terrence R. Cook, Senior Trial Attorney,
-4­

EEOC, 21 South Fifth Street Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515, a list of the locations and dates of posting in each location within 40 days after entry of this Decree. If posted copies become defaced, removed, marred or otherwise illegible, Northwestern agrees to post a readable copy in the same manner as heretofore specified.
Training 9. Northwestern agrees that it or a vendor approved by EEOC, will conduct training for all managers and supervisors at their Pennsylvania facilities within one year of the filing of this Decree on employee rights and employer obligations under both Title VII and relevant state or local anti-discrimination laws, which training will emphasize what constitutes unlawful national origin discrimination in the workplace, how to keep the company free from such discrimination, what constitutes unlawful retaliation and will summarize how to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into allegations, complaints or charges of discrimination. Northwestern agrees to notify the Commission ofthe date of the training, and provide information regarding the substantive content of the training to the Commission prior to the training date.
Dispute Resolution 10. In the event either party to this Decree believes the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance within 20 days of the alleged non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party 20 business days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. Ifthe alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied
-5­

within 20 business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief. This Decree shall not be deemed as a waiver by Northwestern of any defenses, procedural or otherwise, to any claim that Northwestern violated Title VII.
Miscellaneous Provisions 11. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 12. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, successors and assigns of Northwestern in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers of Northwestern and not in their individual capacities. This paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event any individual is found in contempt for a violation of this Decree. 13. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 04-cv-453l-RBS. 14. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and shall continue in effect for five years. During this time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes. Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than 30 days' notice to the other party. Should any material disputes under this Decree remain unresolved after this two-year period, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Consent Decree) until such time as all disputes have been resolved.
-6­

15. This case shall be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice, subject to this Court's jurisdiction to enforce the provisions ofthis Consent Decree.
16. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy of this Consent Decree to counsel of record.
-7­

SEP-13-2006 15:49 From:

To: 2154402632

P.3/3

RONALD S, COOPER
Genel'al Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Couosel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General COLlnsel Washington, D.C.
IJ--~-
~ CQJAELINE B.. MeN AI R Regional Attomey
/0.
'\..-

TR~
KELLEY & MURPHY
Union Meeting Corponlte Ce Suit.e 160,925 Harvest Drive
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 643-6500


TERRENCE R. COO _-Senior Trial Atlomey
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSlON Phihldell,hia District Office 21 South Slh Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia,PA 19106 (215) 440-2688; (215) 440-2848 (FAX)
Auo,."eysj'o,. Plain/ifl Equtll Employmtl1/ Opporlu"i~V Commission

Dated:

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

~ l-J'; 2-dtJ(, / )

,

(v:

I

DNfE

I

~~~/~~ ~t:~

~~74r~()

Exhibit 1

EEOC v. Northwestern Human Services, C.A. No. 04-4531
 Allocation of Settlement Proceeds


Godwin Akiko Izzeldeen Elhage Mohammed Magzoob Martin Nwoga Onyebuchim Onyeanusi Ibrahim Mohammed Osman Osman Abboud WaH

$75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000

Total Amount

$600,000

-9­

SEP-20-2006 15:40 From:
SIP-zo-oe 02:34pm FrDm-EEOC LE~AL UNIT

To: 2154402848

P.1/1

T-88B P,002/002 F·U43

AT. NODg TO

EXhibit%.
NOB1]IWESDRNBUMAN SERVICES EMPLQ)'EE§

1111' Notice is posted P\JT5U8l1t to a Consent Decree altered by the federal COl11"t for lbe Eastem
D1SJ:rict of Pe.nnsyl'YlmiD in goe v. NQrthwol1;m Hl.!'rDM Scryiqca., Civil Action Number 04-cv-4531­
RaS. re'!lolvina J:I. If.l",suil filed by the Equal B:mploymmtr Oppor1Unity Commiaeion (":8BOC") agaimt Norrhwestem Human Service, e',Northwestmt).
Title vn ofthe Civil 'Rights Act of 1964. 42 V.S.C. § 2000e1Ia, as amended ("Title vn"),
prolnoilS discrlminll.tioll against employees I1'Id applicanu for emplClymcmt based upon national orisf,n.
films 5ex, ratc, oolor or religion. Tift; VII turihet prohibitt tetaliatian against employees or appliC8J1&1 who
avail themselves of the righ1:l under' l'itl0 vn by Ollll"mg itl ptotectcd activines. such as 0 o'hargt= or.' discrimination end/aT testifying or panicipatins in a Commission invesball:ion. "fbc EEOC is the federal a,CMY which il\veatipte& charp, ofun.lawfl.ll employment dillCriminlltiOI'1. The EEOC bu the autlKlrity 1:0 brirJg lawllIitli in federal 'ourt tQ enforce Title YD'.

In jq lawsuit, 1hc EEOC alleged tbat Northwestern terminated a clas6 of similarly aitIJDIod employees. based. on their natioaa.l ori;in. Africllll. The EEOC also alleged Northwestern, subjCCl'tod II
class ofstmil.arl~ ~;t\Uated employees to dispomte treatment iJIthc: u:rms DOd «lnditiona oftheir
employment based on their ftallOIlll orljin, Amcan. Northwestern denies all the BSQC's allept1ODs.

To resolve ~ case, Northwostern and the 'EEOC have entered into B. Consent Dccn:c wmoh
provided, amona ather thlnp. that (1) NortbwoltCm ply moncn:a:t)' relief' Iho agrieved employees; (2)
NOnhwClS1:e1'n not discr.lmina\c on tIll: basi. ofnational origin in tho :futurei (3) Nott'hwe.!J!O'ft DOt retaliate
apmuc any pcmotl beliall,e he or shr: opposed any practice made uuJ.,wftJ.l by T'itlc VII. tnI'd a Title vn
c;hllTiC of discrimination, 'pattioipatod in Ifty Tille VII proceeding, or asscrred 1m)' rights UDden: 'the
Conacnt Decree; and (4) Northwest'ern will min an managers and. supervisors in Pennsylvnnia and all employees ad supervisors in irs Huma:u..Resources Depsrtment reprdmg discrimin8'tian and t'Ctaliacion,
and reauding ias l30Ucy ptohIbiMg di~tiOQ a.nd roblliaucm..

Ifyou belleve you bllve been discriminated agaimt. you may contaot 1:he EEOC at (215) 440·
:2600. The EEOC c;;~cs no fOCI and blWl employees who IPCak lMguagcs other tIwl &Jlilh.

IBIS IS.AN OFfICIAL NODCB ANn MUST NOT DE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must roma~ POllted fOl'three (3) yc:ars JIOlTl the date below and must not be 1I11crOd. defRced or oo~d by any otbcr material. My q~'JotigOat compli&XJ~with its tennB may be directed [0 the: R.egioMlI\:rrom"y~ Ph.U.adclphia~Q[ .ofBwo, 21 So\lm Sd! Stnm.
Philadelphia. PA 19 U9fi.

o/l DATID:

~?J" J

·10­

*************"'* -COI11. JCJJRI'R- ********"'********** DATE SEP-25-2006 ***** TIt'E 16: 01 ****"'***

MODE - f'EI1JRY TRANSM ISS ION

STRRT-SEP-25 15:55 END-SEP-25 16:01

FILE 1-0.-540

STN 1-0.
001 002 003

CO!1'1.
0< OK 0<

ABBR 1-0.
•••

STAT ION NAt'E/TEL 1-0.
2154402848 21564383'56 16105668257

PAGES I:il.mT I ON
011/011 00:01:23 011/011 00:01:39
 011/011 00:01:23


*"'***"'**************"'****"'******"'*** -

-JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ­

- ***** ­

- **"'******

~·f R. ~RCLAY SUlRJCL

lJlI_.$IIIfG DI6Irl« J"q.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EAsTERN DISTRlCIOF PENNSYLVANIA

"11 UNtTBD STAlES COOKTNOUSI! INDUDYDI!NC/l M-aJ. WI;$T bX1JlANDMAUETSTlrUn
r/lIUl)/lLPHlA, 'ENI'ISn"ANIA If1Ho1Ul

(261) 2'J9-1fJ'

September 25, 2006

To: Jndith H. McNair, Esquire Mary H. Tiernan, Esquire Terrance R. Cook, Esquire Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 S. 5'" Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Fax: 215-440-2848

Edward J. Murphy, EsqUire Patrick G. Murphy, Esqnire Kelley & Murphy 925 Harvest Drive, Suite 160 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Fax: 215-643-8356
Nanc:y C. Demis, Esquire Gallagher, Schoenfeld. Surkin, &Chupein 25 West Second Street Media, PA 19063
Fax:610-5~82S7

Re: £quill Employment OpportUn!ly Commission v. Northwestern Huma" Sertlius Civil Actio,. No. 04-ctl-4531

Memo: Consent Decrc:c:: to follow.

Via Fax: Eleven (11) pages transmitted to include this COver page.

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Northwestern Human Services, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 2649324 United States District Court,
E.D. Pennsylvania.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and
Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Ibrahim Mohamed, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi, Osman E. Osman, and
Abbud H. Wali, Plaintiff–Intervenors, v.
NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES Defendant.
No. Civ.A. 04–CV–4531. | Oct. 14, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jacqueline H. McNair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Mary M. Tiernan, Terrence R. Cook, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Philadelphia District Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Nancy C. Demis, Gallagher Schoenfeld Surkin & Chupein, Media, PA, for Plaintiffs–Intervenors.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SURRICK, J.
*1 Presently before the Court is the Motion For Leave To Intervene (Doc. No. 17) of the proposed Plaintiff–Intervenors Ibrahim Mohamed, Abbud H. Wali, and Osman E. Osman (“Movants”), Defendant’s Brief In Opposition To The Motion For Leave To Intervene (Doc. No. 18), and the proposed Plaintiff–Intervenors’ Reply Memorandum Of Law (Doc. No. 22). For the following reasons, we will grant the motion for leave to intervene.
I. BACKGROUND On September 27, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) instituted a civil action pursuant to § 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Northwestern Human Services (“NHS”) on behalf of Godwin Akiko, Izzeldeen Elhage, Mohammed Magzoob, Martin Nwoga, Onyebuchim Onyeanusi, and a class of similarly situated employees who were allegedly adversely affected by the alleged

discriminatory employment practices of NHS. (Doc. No. 1.) Specifically, the EEOC contends that NHS’s employment practices were in violation of § 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d–2(a)(1). (Id. at 1, 3–6.) The EEOC alleges that NHS terminated Akiko, Elhage, Magzoob and a class of similarly situated employees based on their national origin, African. The EEOC also alleges that NHS subjected Nwoga, Onyeanusi, and a class of similarly situated employees to disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment based on their national origin, African. (Id. at 5–6.) All of the named individuals in the EEOC’s complaint were born in Africa. (Id. at 3.) More than thirty days prior to the institution of the EEOC’s lawsuit, the Akiko Plaintiff–Intervenors filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by NHS. (Id. at 3.)
On or about October 12, 2004, Akiko, Elhage, Magzoob, Nwoga, and Onyeanusi (“Akiko Plaintiff–Intervenors”) filed a motion for leave to intervene as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. (Doc. No. 2.) We granted the motion on January 6, 2005. (Doc. No. 5.) The present Motion For Leave To Intervene was filed on August 22, 2005. (Doc. No. 17.) In this Motion, Movants assert the same facts and claims as the Akiko Plaintiff–Intervenors. (Id. at Ex. A.) Movants have not filed any charges with the EEOC. (Doc. No. 22 at 5.)

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS Movants seek to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)1 which provides, in pertinent part,

1

Alternatively, Movants appear to request permissive

intervention under Rule 24(b).

(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene.... Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a). Title VII provides that “the person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the [EEOC].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1) (2003). Movants’ right to intervention turns on whether (1) their application for intervention was timely, and (2) they fall within the scope of “persons aggrieved” such that they have an unconditional right to intervene. See Jones v. United Gas Improvement Corp., 69 F.R.D. 398, 400–01 (E.D.Pa.1975).
A. Intervention As Of Right
1

E.E.O.C. v. Northwestern Human Services, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

1. Timeliness *2 Defendant argues that Movants’ motion for intervention was not timely filed and thus should be denied. “The timeliness of a motion to intervene is ‘determined from all the circumstances’ and, in the first instance, ‘by the [trial] court in the exercise of its sound discretion.” ’ In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 695 F.2d 494, 500 (3d Cir.1982) (quoting NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 366, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973)). To determine whether the intervention motion is timely, courts in this Circuit consider: (1) the stage of the proceeding; (2) the prejudice that delay may cause the parties; and (3) the reason for the delay. Mountain Top Condo. Ass’n v. Dave Stabbert Master Builder, Inc. 72 F.3d 361, 369 (3d Cir.1995) (citing In re Fine Paper, 695 F.2d at 500).
The first two factors weigh in favor of determining that Movants have filed in a timely manner. The parties have stipulated to an extension of the discovery period until December 30, 2005. (Doc. No. 21.) According to Movants, NHS has not yet deposed all of the named Plaintiffs and none of Defendant’s witnesses have been deposed. (Doc. No. 22 at 4–5.) See Mountain Top Condo. Ass’n, 72 F.3d at 370 (intervention permitted where some written discovery and settlement negotiations had occurred between the parties, but no depositions taken and no dispositive motions filed); cf. In re Fine Paper, 695 F.2d at 500 (intervention properly denied where motion filed after settlement and entry of judgment). Furthermore, the Movants’ claims are identical to the claims of the Akiko Plaintiff–Intervenors. Defendant received sufficient notice of the nature of Movants’ claims when it was served with both the EEOC’s complaint and the Akiko Plaintiff–Intervenors’ complaint. Therefore, Defendant should not experience any delay in preparing its case due to the addition of Movants as named Plaintiffs. Finally, Movants have provided the Court with little insight into the reason for the delay in their application for intervention. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate the merits of this third factor. However, considering the stipulation extending the discovery deadlines and the apparent lack of prejudice as well as the total circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Movants’ application is timely filed.
2. Person Aggrieved The parties agree that Movants have not filed any charges with the EEOC regarding their claims of employment discrimination, and are now time-barred from doing so. (Doc. No. 18 at 2; Doc. No. 22 at 5.) The Third Circuit has declined to address the issue of whether intervention should be denied to a “person aggrieved” unless he himself has actually filed a charge of unlawful employment practices with the EEOC. EEOC v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 506 F.2d 735, 740 (3d Cir.1974). But see

Jones v. United Gas Improvement Corp., 383 F.Supp. 420, 426 (E.D.Pa.1975) (in a Title VII action, “it is not necessary that members of the class bring a charge with the EEOC as a prerequisite to joining ... in the litigation. It is sufficient that they are in a class and assert the same or some of the issues.” (quoting Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir.1968)). In the standing context, the Third Circuit has defined “persons aggrieved” as “any person aggrieved by any of the practices forbidden by the statute.” EEOC v. Am. Tel., 506 F.2d at 740 (citing Hackett v. McGuire Bros., 445 F.2d 442 (3d Cir.1971). The case of Spirt v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 93 F.R.D. 627 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 691 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir.1982), is instructive. In Spirt, the defendant argued that intervention in an EEOC-filed civil action is limited to those persons who actually filed the charge that prompted the EEOC to commence the action. Id. at 640. In reviewing the Title VII case law, the Spirt court noted that a private person having Article III standing is permitted to commence a private Title VII action as a “person aggrieved” even if the plaintiff has not previously filed an EEOC charge, so long as someone else has previously filed an EEOC charge “nearly identical” to the claim set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint. Id. at 641. Because the Spirt court reasoned it would be “nonsensical” for the courts to give the term “person aggrieved” a different meaning in an EEOC-filed Title VII action, it held that the right of intervention provided in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1) may be invoked if:
*3 (1) the proposed intervenor has an interest in the action sufficient to establish standing under article III of the United States Constitution, and (2) the action was commenced by the EEOC in response to a charge filed either (a) by the proposed intervenor or (b) by another private party having a nearly identical claim to the claim raised by the proposed intervenor.
Spirt, 93 F.R.D. at 641–42. Under this test, the Movants have satisfied the requirements for intervention. Although they have not filed a charge with the EEOC, they have identical claims to the claims raised by the Akiko Plaintiff–Intervenors, who did file charges with the EEOC which then filed suit in response to those charges.
Both parties rely on Communications Workers of America, AFL–CIO v. New Jersey Dep’t of Personnel, 282 F.3d 213 (3d Cir.2002), for its discussion of the single filing rule doctrine. According to the Third Circuit, the single filing rule doctrine permits a party to join a Title VII class action without filing a charge with the EEOC if the original EEOC charge, filed by the plaintiff
2

E.E.O.C. v. Northwestern Human Services, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

who subsequently filed a class action, alleged class-based discrimination in the EEOC charge. Id. at 217 (citing Lusardi v. Lechner, 855 F.2d 1062, 1077–78 (3d Cir.1988)). Thus, the doctrine requires that the underlying action be certified as a class action. Id. The Communications Workers court ultimately upheld the dismissal of the intervenors’ complaint, largely due to the fact that the underlying action was never certified as a class action, thereby failing to satisfy the requirements of the single filing doctrine. Id.
In the case at bar, Defendant argues that Movants should not be able to use the Akiko Plaintiff–Intervenors’ timely filed charges with the EEOC as a means to circumvent Title VII’s requirements because the EEOC has not moved for class certification, and thus the intervenors should meet the same fate as the intervenors in Communications Workers. (Doc. No. 18 at 4–5.) This argument is inapposite, however, as the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, regarding class certification, is not applicable to an enforcement action brought by the EEOC in its own name and pursuant to its authority under § 706 of Title VII. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw., Inc. v. EEOC, 466 U.S. 318, 323 (1980). Furthermore, the EEOC’s original complaint clearly states that the action was brought on behalf of named individuals and a class of similarly situated individuals. (Doc. No. 1 at 3–6.) Thus, the shortcomings of the intervenor action in Communication Workers are not present here.2

2

The fact pattern is also markedly different in

Communications Workers than in the case at bar. In that

case, the EEOC had brought a charge of class-based

discrimination but declined to file suit in its own name;

instead the original plaintiff that had filed a complaint

with the EEOC initiated a Title VII action. The

intervening party was ultimately time-barred from

filing a complaint because it could not satisfy Title

VII’s requirement that, where the EEOC declines to

bring suit, an action must be filed within ninety days

from the date of the EEOC right to sue letter.

Communications Workers, 282 F.3d at 217. By

contrast, here the EEOC has opted to bring suit in its

own name, and Title VII has no such time limitation for

intervention in an action where the EEOC has sued in

its own name. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(f)(1).

In addition, we note that the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e “is to provide notice to the charged party so as to bring to bear the voluntary compliance and conciliation functions of the EEOC.” Behlar v. Smith, 719 F.2d 950, 953 (8th Cir.1983). “When any charge is filed, these purposes are served as there is no claim of surprise in such a situation.” Id. Because Movants’ claims are identical to those of the Akiko Plaintiff–Intervenors, Defendant cannot claim it is unaware of the nature of the claims of the former. See id.

(defendant was apprised of claims of other plaintiffs and could not then claim it was improper to allow new party to intervene so as to assert charges of the same nature).
B. Permissive Intervention *4 Alternatively, Movants have met the standard for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2), which provides, in pertinent part:
(b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action ... (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.... In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). Whether to grant permissive intervention is a matter of discretion for the trial court. Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 597 (3d Cir.1987). In exercising its discretion, the Court is required to consider “whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). While the length of delay is a factor to be considered, it is not dispositive. Molthan v. Temple Univ., 93 F.R.D. 585, 587 (E.D.Pa.1982). The court must assess the impact of intervention on the case as it presently stands. Id.
As we noted earlier, Movants’ claims raise the same issues of both law and fact as those presented in the EEOC’s complaint. Furthermore, Defendant is unlikely to experience any undue delay or prejudice. Discovery is ongoing, and Defendant is already familiar with the nature of the claims asserted by Movants since they are identical to those asserted by the Akiko Plaintiff–Intervenors and the EEOC. See, e.g., Ass’n for Fairness in Bus., Inc. v. New Jersey, 193 F.R.D. 228, 232 (D.N.J.2000) (permissive intervention granted where case was in preliminary stage of litigation and there was limited opportunity for discovery); cf. Molthan, 93 F.R.D. at 587–88 (court denied EEOC’s request for permissive intervention where intervention would necessitate delay at a time when the case had made significant progress towards resolution). Thus, we conclude that permissive intervention is also proper in this case.
An appropriate Order follows.

3

E.E.O.C. v. Northwestern Human Services, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of October 2005, upon consideration of the Motion For Leave To Intervene (Doc. No. 17) of the proposed Plaintiff–Intervenors Ibrahim Mohamed, Abbud H. Wali, and Osman E. Osman, Defendant’s Brief In Opposition To The Motion For Leave To Intervene (Doc. No. 18), and the proposed Plaintiff–Intervenors’ Reply Memorandum Of Law (Doc. No. 22), and it further appearing that Plaintiff–Intervenors are entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Law and that permissive intervention is also appropriate in this case, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff–Intervenors’ Motion For Leave To Intervene is GRANTED. The Clerk

is directed to file the Complaint of the Plaintiff–Intervenors and issue summons thereon and to amend the caption to include Plaintiff–Intervenors as shown.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Parallel Citations 97 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 70
	  

4

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238745125232049-L_3...
CLOSED, STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-04531-RBS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES Assigned to: HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 09/27/2004 Date Terminated: 09/25/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY M. TIERNAN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM PHILA DISTRICT OFFICE THE BOURSE BLDG 21 S. 5TH ST., STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2286 Fax: 215-440-2848 Email: mary.tiernan@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

TERRENCE R. COOK EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2688 Email: terrence.cook@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff

1 of 9

7/12/2007 4:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238745125232049-L_3...

ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI
Intervenor Plaintiff MARTIN NWOGA
Intervenor Plaintiff MOHAMMED MAGZOOB
Intervenor Plaintiff IZZELDEEN ELHAGE
Intervenor Plaintiff GODWIN AKIKO
Intervenor Plaintiff IBRAHIM MOHAMED Intervenor Plaintiff OSMAN E OSMAN Intervenor Plaintiff

represented by NANCY C. DEMIS GALLAGHER SCHOENFELD SURKIN & CHUPEIN 25 WEST SECOND STREET P.O. BOX 900 MEDIA, PA 19063 610-565-4600 Fax: 610-566-8257 Email: ncd@gsscd.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by NANCY C. DEMIS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by NANCY C. DEMIS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by NANCY C. DEMIS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by NANCY C. DEMIS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by NANCY C. DEMIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by NANCY C. DEMIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 9

7/12/2007 4:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238745125232049-L_3...

ABBUD H WALI
V. Defendant NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES

represented by NANCY C. DEMIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK G. MURPHY KELLEY & MURPHY UNION MORTGAGE CORPORATE CENTER V 925 HARVEST DRIVE SUITE 160 BLUE BELL, PA 19422 215-643-6500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EDWARD J. MURPHY, JR. KELLY & MURPHY 925 HARVEST DRIVE SUITE 160 BLUE BELL, PA 19422 215-643-6500 Email: emurphy@kmlaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/27/2004 09/27/2004 09/27/2004 10/12/2004
11/08/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(ti, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
One Original Summons Issued as to NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES. Forwarded To: Counsel on 9/27/04 (ti, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (ti, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
2 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT)(wgc, ) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re: William Grandizio served Summons and Complaint upon Sharon Nesbit on behalf of NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES by Personal Service. NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES served on 10/26/2004, answer due 11/15/2004. (wgc, ) (Entered: 11/08/2004)

3 of 9

7/12/2007 4:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238745125232049-L_3...

12/16/2004 01/06/2005 01/06/2005
01/06/2005 02/04/2005 03/14/2005
03/22/2005 04/01/2005
04/01/2005 04/06/2005
05/16/2005

4 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to plaintiff's Complaint filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES, certificate of service.(mac, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
5 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PARTIES PLAINTIFF IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 1/6/05.1/6/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (stb, ) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
6 PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT against NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES , filed by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO.(stb, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/14/2005 (stb, ). (Entered: 01/06/2005)
1 Original Summons Issued as to NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES. Forwarded To: NANCY DEMIS on 1/6/05 (stb, ) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
7 Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Intervenors' Complaint with Certificate of Service by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.(wgc, ) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
8 ORDER THAT AN INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 4/1/2005 10:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 3/14/05. 3/14/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(stb, ) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
9 STATUS REPORT Joint Case Report by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (COOK, TERRENCE) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
10 ORDER THAT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 4/26/2005 10:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES B. SMITH. SIGNED BY JUDGE CHARLES B. SMITH ON 4/1/05. 4/1/05 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(stb, ) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge R. BARCLAY SURRICK : Pretrial Conference held on 4/1/05 (stb, ) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
12 SCHEDULING ORDER: FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 12/8/2005 10:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK. DISCOVERY DUE BY 9/1/2005. MOTIONS DUE BY 11/14/2005. PLAINTIFF PRETRIAL MEMO DUE BY 12/2/2005. DEFENDANT PRETRIAL MEMO DUE BY 12/2/2005. TRIAL DATE SET FOR 12/12/2005 09:30 AM IN COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 4/6/05. 4/7/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED and E-MAILED.(stb, ) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge GENE E.K. PRATTER : Settlement Conference held on 5/11/05. (stb, ) (Entered: 05/17/2005)

4 of 9

7/12/2007 4:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238745125232049-L_3...

06/29/2005
06/29/2005 07/01/2005 08/24/2005 09/06/2005 09/16/2005 09/20/2005 09/29/2005

14 STIPULATION re 12 Scheduling Order, and Requested Order Re: Expert Identification and Report Deadlines by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service)(DEMIS, NANCY) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 6/30/2005 (np). (Entered: 06/29/2005)
15 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE TIME FOR EXPERT IDENTIFICATION AND REPORT DATES SHOWN IN THE PRESENT SCHEDULING ORDER ARE EXTENDED 30 DAYS. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 6/29/05. 6/30/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(stb, ) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
16 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 1/19/2006 10:00 AM BEFORE HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK. DISCOVERY DUE BY 9/30/2005. MOTIONS DUE BY 12/14/2005. TRIAL DATE SET FOR 1/23/2006 09:30 AM IN COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 7/1/05. 7/1/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(stb, ) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
17 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN, ABBUD H WALI.MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT ATTACHED)(stb, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
18 Brief filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES in Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Intervene of Ibrahim Mohanmed, Abbud H. Wali and Osman E. Osman, Certificate of Service. (cdd, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
19 STIPULATION AND REQUESTED ORDER RE: EXPERT IDENTIFICATION AND REPORT DEADLINES by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO, IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN, ABBUD H WALI. (DEMIS, NANCY) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 9/19/2005 (np). (Entered: 09/16/2005)
20 ORDER THAT THE STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME IS APPROVED; PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFF/INTERVENORS' SHALL FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ON OR BEFORE 10/3/2005. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 9/19/2005. 9/20/2005 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
21 STIPULATION and Requested Order to Extend All Deadlines Herein by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, IBRAHIM MOHAMED, NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES, OSMAN E OSMAN, ABBUD H WALI. (DEMIS, NANCY) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY

5 of 9

7/12/2007 4:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238745125232049-L_3...

10/03/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005
10/14/2005 11/23/2005 12/23/2005 12/30/2005 03/28/2006
04/11/2006

FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 9/30/2005 (np). (Entered: 09/29/2005)
22 REPLY Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion re 17 MOTION to Intervene with certificate of service filed by IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN, ABBUD H WALI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Akiko Charge# 2 Exhibit EEOC Corrsepondence)(DEMIS, NANCY) Modified on 10/4/2005 (np). (Entered: 10/03/2005)
23 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DISCOVERY IS EXTENDED UNTIL 12/30/2005. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 10/14/05. 10/14/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(stb, ) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
24 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PROPOSED PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS IBRAHIM MOHAMED, ABBUD H. WALI AND OSMAN E. OSMAN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 10/14/05.10/17/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (stb, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
25 Plaintiff Class-Members' Intervenors' COMPLAINT filed by IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN, ABBUD H WALI. Jury Demand(stb, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
26 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and Certificate of Service filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.(le, ) (Entered: 11/25/2005)
27 Second Stipulation for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (COOK, TERRENCE) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 12/27/2005 (np). (Entered: 12/23/2005)
28 ORDER THAT THE STIPULATION IS APPROVED. ALL DISCOVERY DUE BY 3/30/2006. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, IF ANY, DUE BY 4/13/2006. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 12/30/05. 12/30/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
29 Stipulation and requested order to allow deposition after close of discovery by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO, IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN, ABBUD H WALI. (DEMIS, NANCY) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 3/30/2006 (np). (Entered: 03/28/2006)
30 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER THAT THE SCHEDULING ORDER DATED 7/1/2005 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 8/30/2006 AT 10:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK. DISCOVERY DUE BY 5/17/2006. MOTIONS IN LIMINE DUE BY 7/14/2006. TRIAL DATE SET FOR 9/11/2006 AT 9:30 AM IN COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY

6 of 9

7/12/2007 4:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238745125232049-L_3...

05/24/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006
06/14/2006
06/16/2006 07/05/2006
07/05/2006

SURRICK ON 4/11/06. 4/11/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
31 NOTICE of Appearance by EDWARD J. MURPHY, JR on behalf of NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES with Certificate of Service (MURPHY, EDWARD) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
32 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(MURPHY, EDWARD) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
33 Appendix - Affidavits and Deposition Transcripts RE: MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 Appendix)(MURPHY, EDWARD) Modified on 6/6/2006 (np). (Entered: 06/02/2006)
34 APPENDIX of Affidavits and Deposition Transcripts filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.(pr, ) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
35 APPENDIX of Miscellaneous Exhibits filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.(pr, ) Modified on 6/5/2006 (pr, ). (Entered: 06/05/2006)
36 APPENDIX of Exhibits and Deposition Transcripts for GODWIN AKIKO, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IBRAHIM MOHAMED, MARTIN NWOGA, ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, OSMAN E. OSMAN, ABBOUD H. WALI filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.. (Attachments: # 1 Akiko-Cont.)(pr, ) Modified on 6/5/2006 (pr, ). (Entered: 06/05/2006)
37 STIPULATION re 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment, [34] Exhibit, 36 Exhibit,, 35 Exhibit Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (COOK, TERRENCE) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 6/15/2006 (np). (Entered: 06/14/2006)
38 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE TIME TO RESPOND TO DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS IS EXTENDED UNTIL 7/5/2006. SIGNED BY JUDGE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 6/16/06. 6/19/06 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(le, ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
39 Memorandum in Opposition re 33 Appendix - Affidavits and Deposition Transcripts re: MOTION for Summary Judgment, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Certificate of Service. (COOK, TERRENCE) Modified on 7/6/2006 (np). (Entered: 07/05/2006)
40 RESPONSE in Opposition re 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Proposed Order and Certificates of Service filed by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO, IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN, ABBUD H WALI. (Attachments: # 1 Answer and Counter-Statement in Response to Defendent Northwestern Human Services' Statement of Undisputed Facts)(DEMIS, NANCY) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

7 of 9

7/12/2007 4:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238745125232049-L_3...

07/05/2006 07/05/2006 07/07/2006
07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006
07/26/2006 07/26/2006 07/26/2006

41 Exhibits in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Volume I filed by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN and ABBUD H WALI.(le, ) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
42 Exhibits in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Volume II filed by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN and ABBUD H WALI.(le, ) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
43 Exhibit X to Plaintiff's Volume I Exhibits to Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN and ABBUD H WALI.(le, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
44 MOTION in Limine To Preclude Testimony Regarding and/or References to Past Acts of Discrimination filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.Memorandum, Certificate of Service.(MURPHY, EDWARD) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
45 MOTION in Limine Exclude Evidence Relating To The Eeoc?s Determination Letter And Testimony Of The EEOC filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.Memorandum, Certificate of Service.(MURPHY, EDWARD) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
46 REPLY to Response to Motion re 33 Appendix - Affidavits and Deposition Transcripts re: MOTION for Summary Judgment, 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES. (MURPHY, EDWARD) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
47 RESPONSE in Opposition re 44 MOTION in Limine To Preclude Testimony Regarding and/or References to Past Acts of Discrimination with attached proposed order and certificate of service filed by ONYEBUCHIM ONYEANUSI, MARTIN NWOGA, MOHAMMED MAGZOOB, IZZELDEEN ELHAGE, GODWIN AKIKO, IBRAHIM MOHAMED, OSMAN E OSMAN, ABBUD H WALI. (DEMIS, NANCY) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
48 Memorandum in Opposition of Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion to Strike Paragraphs 268-274 of Defendant's Statement of Material Facts re 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES. (MURPHY, EDWARD) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
49 MOTION to Strike Portions of the Affidavit of Darrell Ross filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.Memorandum, Certificate of Service.(MURPHY, EDWARD) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
50 MOTION to Strike the Affidavit of Abboud Wali filed by NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES.Memorandum, Certificate of Service.(MURPHY, EDWARD) (Entered: 07/26/2006)

8 of 9

7/12/2007 4:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?238745125232049-L_3...

08/14/2006 09/25/2006

51 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge R. BARCLAY SURRICK: Settlement Conference held on 8/14/06. (sc, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
52 CONSENT ORDER THAT THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION AND THAT NORTHWESTERN IN ENJOINED FROM DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEE ON THE BASIS OF NATIONAL ORIGINAL, ETC.. SIGNED BY JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 9/25/06. 9/26/06 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(le, ) (Entered: 09/26/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/12/2007 17:31:47

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

eeoc 2:04-cv-04531-RBS 0.40

9 of 9

7/12/2007 4:30 PM