IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a/ PRIME, INC. )

Serve Registered Agent:

)

Arthur E. Curtis

)

1340 East Woodhurst

)

Springfield, MO 65804

)

)

and

)

)

ABEL JOSEPH LORMAND

)

Serve at:

)

101 A Street

)

Carencro, LA 70520

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-ODS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned attorneys, and for her cause

of action against the Defendants state as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman is a resident of the State of Mississippi, residing in Petal,

Forrest County, Mississippi. She has the capacity to sue.

2. Defendant New Prime, Inc. (hereafter “Prime”) is a corporation of the State of

Nebraska with its principal place of business located at 2740 North Mayfair, Springfield, Missouri

65808. Defendant Prime is also registered with the State of Missouri under the name Prime, Inc.

1

and conducts business in the State of Missouri under that name. It has the capacity to be sued. 3. Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand (hereafter “Lormand”) is a resident of the State
of Louisiana. He has the capacity to be sued. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Plaintiff brings her cause of action against Defendant Prime under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216. This Court therefore has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiff’s claims arising under State law are so related to the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy, and this Court therefore has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In addition, complete diversity exists between the parties and the aggregate amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000, giving this Court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
5. Defendant Prime is an employer pursuant to the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216 and the Missouri Human Rights Act, Chapter 213 R.S. Mo.
6. Plaintiff filed her Complaint of Discrimination jointly with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights on June 16, 2000.
7. Plaintiff received her Right to Sue Letter from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights on January 9, 2001 (Attached as Exhibit 1).
8. Plaintiff was employed in the State of Missouri by Defendant Prime. 9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendant Prime maintains its principal office in this judicial district, and in that
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this
2

judicial district. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
10. Defendant Prime operates Prime, Inc. located in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri.
11. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Prime as a CDL truck driver trainee from January 11, 2000 to April 6, 2000.
12. Stan Woodall (hereafter “Woodall”) was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by Defendant Prime as a dispatcher and was, at all times relevant to this action, the direct supervisor of Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand.
13. Defendant Lormand was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by Defendant Prime as a trainer/driver, and was, at all times relevant to this action, the direct supervisor of Plaintiff.
14. Beginning on February 23, 2000, Defendant Prime, through its agents and employees, began engaging in acts of sexual harassment and retaliation aimed at the Plaintiff as more specifically described below.
15. While on a training trip that lasted from February 23, 2000 to March 6, 2000, Defendant Lormand subjected Plaintiff to numerous sexually oriented comments and physical touchings that were unwelcome and offensive and which a reasonable person would find unwelcome and offensive. These incidents include, but are not limited to:
a. Defendant Lormand made a comment to Plaintiff that he would be in various stages of undress while in the truck, which included being naked. Plaintiff immediately objected to Defendant Lormand’s inappropriate comments, but Defendant continued his
3

inappropriate comments and behavior as alleged below. b. Defendant Lormand made a comment to Plaintiff that Defendant Lormand
and Plaintiff might like to lie in bed together while Defendant Lormand had no clothes on. This remark was made between ten and twenty times, with each remark being followed by Plaintiff’s expression of discomfort and/or disapproval.
c. Defendant Lormand, while Plaintiff was behind the wheel of the truck, opened Plaintiff’s door, placed his arm around Plaintiff and squeezed her right breast.
d. Defendant Lormand told Plaintiff that he had an orgy movie in the truck, and that after she showered that Plaintiff could come back and lie in bed with Defendant, while he was naked, to watch the movie, and that then he would hook up the Playboy channel.
e. On or about March 2nd, 2000 Defendant Lormand took Plaintiff against her will to his home in Louisiana.
f. On or about March 2nd, 2000, Defendant Lormand tried to force Plaintiff into his home and into his bed.
g. For two days, Defendant Lormand held Plaintiff against her will at his home and refused to take Plaintiff to a hotel per her request, and again tried to force Plaintiff into his home and into his bed.
h. All of the acts of Defendant Lormand as alleged above were performed without Plaintiff’s permission or consent, and over her repeated objections.
16. Defendant Lormand was instructed by Defendant Prime to push Plaintiff during the training trip of February 23, 2000 to March 6, 2000 because she was a female.
17. Prior to February 23, 2000, dispatchers employed by Defendant Prime had refused
4

to work with Defendant Lormand due to Defendant Lormand’s erratic behavior. 18. Defendant Prime, through its authorized agent and employee Stan Woodall, was
aware of many of the actions of Defendant Lormand as described above, yet failed to take action against Defendant Lormand and failed to take action to assist Plaintiff. These incidents include, but are not limited to the following:
a. After Plaintiff informed Woodall of her fears and concerns with Defendant Lormand, Woodall took no corrective action against Defendant Lormand and took no action to have Plaintiff removed from Defendant Lormand’s truck.
b. Woodall was sent an urgent message on the Qual-Com computer system on or about March 2nd, 2000 by Plaintiff, indicating that she was scared and feared for her life because Defendant Lormand was holding her against her will at his home and would not take her to a safe hotel. Defendant Prime and/or Woodall did not respond.
c. Woodall was contacted at home, by phone, on March 3 rd, 2000 by Plaintiff with regards to her urgent message of March 2nd, 2000. Woodall told Plaintiff that “you will be leaving for Texas in a few hours; can’t you hold on until you get to your next stop.”
19. When Plaintiff discussed Defendant Lormand’s actions with Woodall, she asked Woodall not to reveal her fears to Defendant Lormand until she was safely away from him and his truck. Shortly afterwards, Defendant Lormand confronted Plaintiff and told her that Woodall had informed him of Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant Lormand then began yelling at her and telling her that “she would not get off of the truck when they reach Texas.” that “she was going back to Louisiana with me.”
20. Plaintiff also attempted on two occasions to contact the president of Defendant
5

Prime, Robert E. Low, to inform him of her problems with Defendant Lormand as alleged above. Plaintiff on one occasion left a message with Mr. Low’s secretary and on another occasion left a message on Mr. Low’s voice mail. Plaintiff never received any response to these messages from Mr. Low.
21. Defendant Prime, through its authorized agent and employee Woodall began a series of retaliatory actions against Plaintiff after she discussed Defendant Lormand’s actions with Woodall. These retaliatory actions include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Ignoring Plaintiff’s requests for another trainer. b. Ignoring Plaintiff’s urgent messages to come get her because she was in fear for her safety. c. Not taking Plaintiff’s complaints seriously. d. Refusing to send someone to pick her up and refusing to find a bus station in the area. e. Not assisting Plaintiff with correcting her pay. f. After Plaintiff returned to Prime headquarters, Woodall give a card containing a picture of a nude woman to Plaintiff and made humiliating remarks about Plaintiff “being fun on the road.” 22. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future medically diagnosable emotional distress resulting in symptoms that include, but are not limited to, loss of sleep, nightmares and loss of appetite. 23. Plaintiff has incurred hundreds of dollars in counseling expenses as a result of the actions of Defendants as alleged herein.
6

24. Defendant Prime promised Plaintiff that she would be paid four-hundred dollars ($400) a week during the first 30 days of her training period and five-hundred dollars ($500) a week for the remainder of her training period. Defendant Prime paid Plaintiff much less than the amounts promised.
COUNT I MHRA – SEXUAL HARASSMENT
DEFENDANT PRIME 25. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 24 of this Petition into this Count I as though fully set forth herein. 26. Plaintiff was subjected to numerous sexually oriented comments and jokes, was held against her will, and was subjected to physical touching at the hands of her supervisors and co-workers. 27. The sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings as alleged above were unwelcome and offensive and a reasonable person would find them unwelcome and offensive. 28. The sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings as alleged above were based on Plaintiff’s sex. 29. The sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings as alleged above were sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in the Plaintiff’s position would find Plaintiff’s work environment to be hostile or abusive. 30. At the time the sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings alleged above occurred and as a result of such conduct, Plaintiff believed her work environment to be hostile or abusive.
7

31. Defendant knew or should have known of the sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings alleged above.
32. Defendant failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment.
33. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and inactions alleged herein, Plaintiff has sustained and are reasonably certain to sustain in the future, irreparable harm in numerous respects, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, offensive touching, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, personal humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, medical and counseling expenses and potential loss of reputation;
b. Significant mental anguish, loss of sleep, nightmares, loss of appetite, nervousness and suffering;
c. Embarrassment and loss of prestige among her co-workers; and d. Attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuing redress for the wrongs she has suffered at the hands of the Defendant. 34. Defendant acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s right not to be sexually harassed, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to the Missouri Human Rights Act in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order: a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continued violations
8

of the Missouri Human Rights Act; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary
to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiff’s employment opportunities;
d. Defendant be required to compensate, reimburse, and make whole Plaintiff for the full value of all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages Plaintiff has sustained in the past, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential loss of reputation, and all consequent damages;
e. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such sum as will punish Defendant and deter the Defendant and others from like conduct;
f. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
g. That Plaintiff be granted a letter of apology from Defendant Prime and for such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II MHRA – SEX DISCRIMINATION
DEFENDANT PRIME 35. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 34 of this Petition into this Count II as though fully set forth herein. 36. On information and belief, Plaintiff was treated less favorably than similarly situated male employees with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
9

37. Plaintiff’s sex is a motivating factor in Defendant Prime’s decision to treat her less favorably than similarly situated male employees with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
38. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and inactions alleged herein, Plaintiff has sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, irreparable harm in numerous respects, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, offensive touching, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, personal humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, medical and counseling expenses and potential loss of reputation;
b. Significant mental anguish, loss of sleep, nightmares, loss of appetite, nervousness and suffering;
c. Embarrassment and loss of prestige among her co-workers; and d. Attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuing redress for the wrongs she has suffered at the hands of the Defendant. 39. Defendant acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s right not to be discriminated against, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct. Such malice or reckless indifference is part of a pattern of conduct engaged in by Defendant on prior, similar occasions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to the Missouri Human Rights Act in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order: a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continued violations
10

of the Missouri Human Rights Act; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary
to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiff’s employment opportunities;
d. Defendant be required to compensate, reimburse, and make whole Plaintiff for the full value of all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages Plaintiff has sustained in the past, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential loss of reputation, and all consequent damages;
e. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such amount as will punish the Defendant and deter the Defendant and others from like conduct;
f. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
g. That Plaintiff be granted a letter of apology from Defendant Prime and for such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III EQUAL PAY ACT DEFENDANT PRIME 40. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 39 of this Petition into this Count III as though fully set forth herein. 41. On information and belief, Plaintiff has been paid less than male employees in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.
11

42. The acts of Defendant Prime in denying equal treatment and equal pay to the Plaintiff was done knowingly, willingly and intentionally with the action taken by Defendant Prime to deny rights known to be secured to the Plaintiff and for the pecuniary benefit of Defendant Prime, even though such acts are in violation of the law. Such actions taken by Defendant Prime warrant such enhanced recovery as provided under the law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court enter judgment under the Equal Pay Act in her favor against Defendant Prime and that the Court enter the following order:
a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Equal Pay Act; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continued violations of the Equal Pay Act; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiff’s employment opportunities; d. Awarding Plaintiff all back pay differential between what the Plaintiff have received and what similarly situated male employees have received for same and similar work over the same period of time; e. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages as allowed for under the EPA; f. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees; and g. That Plaintiff be granted a letter of apology from Defendant Prime and for such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV
12

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION DEFENDANT PRIME
43. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 42 of this Petition into this Count IV as though fully set forth herein.
44. Defendant Prime represented to Plaintiff that she would be paid four-hundred dollars ($400) a week during the first week of her training and five-hundred dollars ($500) a week for the remainder of her training, intending that Plaintiff rely on such representation in hiring on with the Defendant as a CDL truck driver trainee.
45. Defendant Prime’s representation was false. 46. Defendant Prime knew the representation was false at the time it was made. 47. The representation was material to Plaintiff’s decision to hire on with Defendant Prime as a CDL truck driver trainee. 48. Plaintiff relied on the representation in hiring on with Defendant Prime as a CDL truck driver trainee and in so relying Plaintiff used that degree of care that would have been reasonable in Plaintiff’s situation. 49. Defendant Prime’s false representation directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to the Plaintiff, including but not limited to underpayment of wages and financial hardship due to being on the road without sufficient income to cover expenses. 50. The conduct of Defendant Prime as alleged herein was outrageous because of its evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, making it subject to an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor and against
13

Defendant Prime and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in such amount as to fairly and

reasonably compensate for the damages she has suffered as a result of the conduct of the

Defendant as alleged herein;

b. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such sum as is appropriate to

punish the Defendant and to deter Defendant and others from like conduct in the future;

c. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and

reasonable attorney’s fees; and

d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V ASSAULT AND BATTERY DEFENDANT LORMAND

51. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 50 of this Petition into

this Count V as though fully set forth herein.

52. Defendant Lormand intentionally touched and fondled Plaintiff without her

permission or consent.

53. Defendant Lormand thereby caused a contact with Plaintiff that was offensive to

Plaintiff.

54. Such contact as alleged herein would be offensive to a reasonable person.

55. Defendant Lormand made numerous suggestive comments to Plaintiff indicating

that he desired to have a sexual relationship with her, and he forced Plaintiff to remain against her

will at his home, suggesting on several occasions that they sleep in the same bed.

56. Defendant Lormand thereby caused Plaintiff to be in apprehension of an offensive

14

contact or bodily harm.

57. Such contact as alleged herein would be offensive to a reasonable person.

58. As a result of the actions of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered, and will continue to suffer in the future, indignity, disgrace, humiliation and

mortification.

59. The conduct of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein was outrageous because of

his evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, making him subject to an award of

punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor and against

Defendant Lormand and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in such amount as to fairly and

reasonably compensate for the damages she has suffered as a result of the conduct of the

Defendant as alleged herein;

b. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such sum as is appropriate to

punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct in the future;

c. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and

reasonable attorney’s fees; and

d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

15

COUNT VI FALSE IMPRISONMENT DEFENDANT LORMAND

60. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 59 of this Petition into

this Count VI as though fully set forth herein.

61. Defendant Lormand unlawfully restrained Plaintiff against her will by taking

Plaintiff to his home, where he forced her to remain for two days.

62. As a result of the actions of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein, Plaintiff

Huffman has suffered, and will continue to suffer in the future, embarrassment, disgrace,

humiliation, injury to her feelings and reputation and mental suffering.

63. The conduct of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein was outrageous because of

his evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, making him subject to an award of

punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor and against

Defendant Lormand and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in such amount as to fairly and

reasonably compensate her for the damages she has suffered as a result of the conduct of the

Defendant as alleged herein;

b. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such sum as is appropriate to

punish the Defendant and to deter Defendant and others from like conduct in the future;

c. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and

reasonable attorney’s fees; and

16

d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted, ROGER G. BROWN AND ASSOCIATES
By /s/Roger G. Brown Roger G. Brown (#29055) 216 East McCarty Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-2960 Telephone - (573) 634-8501 Telecopy - (573) 634-7679
MONTAGUE, PITTMAN & VARNADO F. Douglas Montague Dustin N. Thomas P.O. Drawer 1975 Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39403-1975 Telephone - (601) 544-1234 Telecopy - (601) 544-1280
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
17

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, et al.

)

)

Plaintiff/Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC., et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-3-ECF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR CYNTHIA HUFFMAN’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff-Intervenor, by and through her undersigned attorneys, and for

her cause of action against the Defendants state as follows: PARTIES

1. Plaintiff-Intervenor Cynthia Huffman is a resident of the State of Mississippi, residing in Petal, Forrest County, Mississippi. She has the capacity to sue.

2. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the federal

agency charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, brought the

instant action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). It has the capacity to sue.
3. Defendant New Prime, Inc. is a corporation of the State of Nebraska, with its

principal place of business located at 2740 North Mayfair, Springfield, Missouri 65808.

Defendant Prime is also registered with the State of Missouri under the name Prime, Inc. and

conducts business in the State of Missouri under that name. It has the capacity to be sued. 4. Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand (hereafter “Lormand”) is a resident of the State 1

of Louisiana. Defendant Lormond at all times relevant herein had numerous contacts and did business within the State of Missouri. Specifically, Defendant Lormand, at all relevant times, was an over-the-road truck driver. The main, if not exclusive contracts or employment, were for hauling various goods as directed by the Defendant Prime, and in those contracts entered into by Defendant Lormand with Defendant Prime, they were all sitused in the State of Missouri and in some instances, litigation involving such contracts was stipulated to to be in this Court or at least in the Courts of Greene County. Some of the tortious acts complained of herein, committed by Defendant Lormand, took place in the State of Missouri. Defendant Lormand has the capacity to be sued with venue and jurisdiction in this Court.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Plaintiff-Intervenor brings her cause of action against Defendant Prime under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216 and Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), and Section 102 (d) of the Civil rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. This Court therefore has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiff-Intervenor’s claims arising under State law are so related to the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy, and this Court therefore has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 6. Defendant Prime is an employer pursuant to the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216 and Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), and Section 102 (d) of the Civil rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a and the Missouri Human Rights Act, Chapter 213 R.S. Mo. (MHRA)
2

7. Plaintiff-Intervenor filed her Complaint of Discrimination jointly with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights on June 16, 2000.
8. Plaintiff-Intervenor received her Right to Sue Letter from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights on January 9, 2001. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed their cause under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Plaintiff-Intervenor was given leave to intervene.
9. Plaintiff-Intervenor was employed in the State of Missouri by Defendant Prime. 10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendant Prime maintains its principal office in this judicial district, and in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman’s claims occurred in this judicial district. Certain acts by Defendant Lormand took place in Missouri. Certain acts more specifically described below were of an ongoing, harassing, intimidating nature, wherein such acts began in the State of Missouri and continued on, as more specifically stated below, in and through other states, all of which caused Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman great mental and emotional distress. Such acts of Defendant Lormand are more specifically stated below. 11. §500.506 et. seq. RSMo. (Missouri Long Arm Statute) confers jurisdiction of this Court over Defendant Lormand due to his minimum contacts with the State of Missouri. Such contacts are more specifically alleged below. This Court is bound by the State of Missouri Supreme Court on its interpretation of State Statutes. Institutional Food Marketing Associates, Ltd. v. Golden State Strawberries, Inc. 747 F.2d 448 (8th Cir.1984). The reach of State Long Arm Statute is a question of State law and the Federal Court is bound by the State Supreme
3

Courts interpretation of that Long Arm Statute. 12. Defendant Lormand has engaged in the following acts in the State of Missouri,
upon which the Missouri Long Arm Statute gives this Court jurisdiction: a. Transacted business within the State of Missouri; b. Made contracts within the State of Missouri; and c. Committed tortious acts within the State of Missouri.
13. Due to the acts of Defendant Lormand, Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman has sustained actionable consequences in Missouri, specifically the loss of her job, embarrassment and great emotional distress.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 14. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint as is fully set forth herein. 15. Defendant Prime, at all relevant times, operated Prime, Inc. in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, and employed Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman as a truck driver-trainee. 16. Stan Woodall (hereafter “Woodall”) was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by Defendant Prime as a dispatcher and was, at all times relevant to this action, the direct supervisor of Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand. 17. Defendant Lormand has had numerous contacts with the State of Missouri at all relevant times. Specifically:
a. Defendant Lormand entered into various contracts with Defendant Prime, including: (1.) Leased equipment from Defendant Prime (Ex. A). Such contract dated 2/09/00 provided for its situs to be the State of Missouri and 4

venue in this Court and District for causes of action from operation of such equipment. (Many of Defendant Lormand’s acts were conducted in the equipment that is subject of this contract, Ex. A.) (2.) An “Independent Contractor Operator Agreement” (Ex. B) dated 2/02/00 was executed between Defendant Lormand and Defendant Prime. Such contract provided in part: (a) “... all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this
agreement shall be tried and litigated only in the Court of the State of Missouri of the United States for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division”; (b) The situs of the contract is Greene County, Missouri; and (c) Such contract was a 1 year contract automatically renewable year-to-year. (3.) “The Personal Service Agreement” dated 2/09/00 (Ex. C). By the agreement, Defendant Prime provided to Defendant Lormand drivers, such as Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman, which placed Defendant Lormand in a supervisory role over drivers like PlaintiffIntervenor Huffman, including whether or not she is discharged. Such control also specified Missouri Law was the choice of law. By signing such an agreement Defendant Lormand agreed “...that all actions and proceeds arising in connection with this agreement shall be tried and litigated in the Courts of Missouri in the United States for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division.
5

Defendant Lormand accepted this Court as proper venue and jurisdiction. (4.) A accessory lease agreement with Defendant Prime (Ex. D) dated 2/09/00 leased certain equipment by Defendant Prime to Defendant Lormand. By such lease, Defendant Lormand chose Missouri law to construe the contract. 18. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Lormand acted on behalf of Defendant Prime as Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman’s supervisor. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman’s employment with Prime originated and was located in Missouri at Defendant Prime’s principal locations. Defendant Lormand’s supervisory position originated from and was performed for Defendant Prime. Lormand’s principal place of business is in Missouri. Defendant Lormand, in effect, became Plaintiff-Intervenor’s supervisor by his performance of the “Personnel Service Agreement” (Ex. C). In such agreement, Defendant Lormand executed such contract in Missouri and stipulated to the venue of both State and Federal Courts found in Greene County, Missouri. 19. Beginning on February 23, 2000, Defendant Prime, through its agents, Lormand, and employees, began engaging in acts of sexual harassment and retaliation aimed at the PlaintiffIntervenor by committing numerous acts of intentional and negligent infliction of mental distress, including the following: a. While on the trip that lasted from February 23, 2000 to March 6, 2000, Lormand subjected Huffman to numerous sexually oriented comments and physical touchings that were unwelcome and offensive and which a reasonable person would find unwelcome and offensive.
6

b. On or about February 23, 2000, Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman was driving with Defendant Lormand when he informs Huffman that “[he] will sleep nude or in [his] underwear on the truck, and sometimes I might come out in my underwear while you are driving to smoke a cigarette.” Such acts and statements by Defendant Lormand were made in Springfield, Missouri.
c. Upon Plaintiff-Intervenor’s statement about contacting Defendant Prime if Lormand was in his underwear or nude, Defendant Lormand portrayed to Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman, that while she was on his truck that “...you can forget any of Prime’s rules or company policies...I make the rules.” Such actions and statements began immediately upon leaving Springfield, and while still in the State of Missouri and continued on throughout the trip. Such statements caused Huffman great mental anguish and distress which continues today.
20. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman was sexually assaulted and held against her will at the hands of Defendant Prime’s trainer, Lormand while on his truck.
21. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman requested that Prime’s dispatcher, Stan Woodall, remove her from Defendant Lormand’s truck due to the offensive comments, touchings and fearing for her safety.
22. Defendant Lormand made comments to Plaintiff-Intervenor that she should lie in bed with him while he had no clothes on at least ten to twenty times. Such comments made Huffman uncomfortable and she expressed to him her disapproval of such comments.
23. Defendant Lormand climbed up on the driver’s side of the cab, while Plaintiff 7

Intervenor Huffman was behind the wheel, placed his arm around her shoulder and squeezed her right breast.
24. Lormand told Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman that he had orgy movies and that she would lie in bed with him, while he was naked, and watch them with him. He proceeded to tell her that once the orgy movie was done, that he had the Playboy channel hooked up. Huffman was forced to sit up all night in a diner so that she would not be subjected to such activity.
25. Defendant Lormand, on or about March 2nd, 2000, took Plaintiff-Intervenor against her will to his home in Louisiana, an area that she was not familiar. Huffman was held against her will for two days, as well as, Lormand tried to physically force Plaintiff-Intervenor into his home and into his bed.
26. All the acts of Defendant Lormand as alleged above were performed without Plaintiff-Intervenor’s permission or consent, and over her repeated objections.
27. Defendant Lormand was instructed by Defendant Prime to push PlainitffIntervenor during the training trip of February 23, 2000 to March 6, 2000 because she was a female.
28. Plaintiff-Intervenor contacted Defendant Prime, through dispatcher Woodall, for assistance by Qual-Comm and Cellular phone to tell them that she was fearful of her life and wanted to be removed from Defendant Lormand’s truck.
29. Prior to February 23, 2000, dispatchers employed by Defendant Prime had refused to work with Defendant Lormand due to Defendant Lormand’s erratic behavior.
30. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman asked that dispatcher Woodall not say anything to Lormand with regard to her fears, until she was away from the truck and Defendant Lormand. Woodall immediately contacted Lormand with regard to Huffman requesting to be removed.
8

31. Defendant Prime, through its authorized agent and employee Stan Woodall, was aware of many of the actions of Defendant Lormand as described above, yet failed to take action against Defendant Lormand and failed to take action to assist Plainitff-Intervenor. These incidents include, but are not limited to the following:
a. After Plainitff-Intervenor informed Woodall of her fears and concerns with Defendant Lormand, Woodall took no corrective action against Defendant Lormand and took no action to have Plainitff-Intervenor removed from Defendant Lormand’s truck.
b. Woodall was sent an urgent message on the Qual-Com computer system on or about March 2nd, 2000 by Plainitff-Intervenor, indicating that she was scared and feared for her life because Defendant Lormand was holding her against her will at his home and would not take her to a safe hotel. Defendant Prime and/or Woodall did not respond.
c. Woodall was contacted at home, by phone, on March 3 rd, 2000 by Plainitff-Intervenor with regards to her urgent message of March 2 nd, 2000. Woodall told Plainitff-Intervenor that “you will be leaving for Texas in a few hours; can’t you hold on until you get to your next stop.”
32. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman was then subjected Lormand’s anger and his comments that “...[she] was not getting off the truck and [she] was going back to Louisiana with [him]...”
33. Plaintiff-Intervenor also attempted on two occasions to contact the president of Defendant Prime, Robert E. Low, to inform him of her problems with Defendant Lormand as alleged above. Plainitff-Intervenor on one occasion left a message with Mr. Low’s secretary and
9

on another occasion left a message on Mr. Low’s voice mail. Plaintiff-Intervenor never received any response to these messages from Mr. Low.
34. Plaintiff-Intervenor removed herself from the truck at the next stop for fear for her life. Plaintiff-Intervenor was scared, alone and without any means to get back to Springfield Defendant Lormand’s actions after being held hostage caused Plaintiff-Intervenor great mental anguish and distress.
35. Defendant Prime, through its authorized agent and employee Woodall began a series of retaliatory actions against Plaintiff-Intervenor after she discussed Defendant Lormand’s actions with Woodall. These retaliatory actions include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Ignoring Plaintiff-Intervenor’s requests for another trainer. b. Ignoring Huffman’s urgent messages to come get her because she was in
fear for her safety. c. Not taking Plaintiff-Intervenor’s complaints seriously. d. Refusing to send someone to pick her up and refusing to find a bus station
in the area. e. Not assisting Plaintiff-Intervenor with correcting her pay. f. After Huffman returned to Prime headquarters, Woodall gave a card
containing a picture of a nude woman to her and made humiliating remarks about Huffman “being fun on the road.” Plaintiff-Intervenor was subjected to additional mental distress by Defendant Prime’s dispatcher, Woodall, upon being subjected to sexual harassment upon returning to Springfield. 36. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman has suffered
10

and will continue to suffer diagnosable emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, humiliation, prolonged incapacity to work, and inconvenience, lost wages to date, lost wages in the future, loss of sleep, nightmares and loss of appetite.
37. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman has incurred and continues to incur counseling and medical expenses.
38. Defendant Lormand had substantial and ongoing contacts with the State of Missouri at all times relevant to the facts and causes of this case. Specifically:
a. Lormand had numerous business contacts and stipulated to the venue and situs of Missouri with regard to those contracts and the conduct of his business;
b. He Performed his work under such contracts throughout the State of Missouri in that he would drive his truck wherever Defendant Prime sent him, including the State of Missouri and his terminal was located in the State of Missouri;
c. Defendant Lormand committed tortious acts in Missouri and committed tortious acts in other states that either began in Missouri, continued on from acts in Missouri and certainly had consequences in Missouri;
d. Missouri and this Court have an interest in providing a forum for this cause; and
e. The convenience for all parties considered is served by this cause being venued in this jurisdiction and this Court.
f. Plaintiff-Intervenor attaches logs of the Defendant Lorman showing his continued business in Missouri as a truck driver for Defendant Prime (Ex. 11

E). 39. Defendant Prime promised Plainitff-Intervenor that she would be paid fourhundred dollars ($400) a week during the first 30 days of her training period and five-hundred dollars ($500) a week for the remainder of her training period. Defendant Prime paid PlainitffIntervenor much less than the amounts promised.
COUNT I TITLE VII AND MHRA - SEXUAL HARASSMENT
DEFENDANT PRIME 40. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 41. By the unlawful acts alledged above, Defendant Prime has violated Title VII. 42. As a direct and proxiamte result of Defendant Prime’s unlawful acts, PlainitffIntervenor Huffman has sustained and is reasonably likely to sustain in the future irreparable harm in the form of both pecuniary adn nonpecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, medical and counseling expenses, and attorneys’ fees and expenses all due to being subjected to numerous sexually oriented comments and jokes, held against her will, and subjected to physical touching at the hands of her supervisors and co-workers. 43. The sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings as alleged above were unwelcome and offensive and a reasonable person would find them unwelcome and offensive. 44. The sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings as alleged above were based on Plainitff-Intervenor’s sex.
12

45. The sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings as alleged above were sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in the Plainitff-Intervenor’s position would find Plainitff-Intervenor’s work environment to be hostile or abusive.
46. At the time the sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings alleged above occurred and as a result of such conduct, Plainitff-Intervenor believed her work environment to be hostile or abusive.
47. Defendant knew or should have known of the sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings alleged above.
48. Defendant failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and inactions alleged herein, Plainitff-Intervenor has sustained and are reasonably certain to sustain in the future, irreparable harm in numerous respects, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, offensive touching, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, personal humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, medical and counseling expenses and potential loss of reputation;
b. Significant mental anguish, loss of sleep, nightmares, loss of appetite, nervousness and suffering;
c. Embarrassment and loss of prestige among her co-workers; and d. Attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuing redress for the wrongs she has
suffered at the hands of the Defendant. 50. Defendant acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Plainitff-Intervenor’s
13

right not to be sexually harassed, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plainitff-Intervenor prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order:
a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII;
b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continued violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII;
c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plainitff-Intervenor’s employment opportunities;
d. Defendant be required to compensate, reimburse, and make whole Plainitff-Intervenor for the full value of all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages Plainitff-Intervenor has sustained in the past, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential loss of reputation, and all consequent damages;
e. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor punitive damages in such sum as will punish Defendant and deter the Defendant and others from like conduct;
f. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees; and 14

g. That Plainitff-Intervenor be granted a letter of apology from Defendant Prime and for such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II
TITLE VII AND MHRA – SEX DISCRIMINATION DEFENDANT PRIME
51. Plainitff-Intervenor incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Petition into this Count II as though fully set forth herein.
52. On information and belief, Plainitff-Intervenor was treated less favorably than similarly situated male employees with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
53. Plainitff-Intervenor’s sex is a motivating factor in Defendant Prime’s decision to treat her less favorably than similarly situated male employees with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
54. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and inactions alleged herein, Plainitff-Intervenor has sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, irreparable harm in numerous respects, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, offensive touching, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, personal humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, medical and counseling expenses and potential loss of reputation;
b. Significant mental anguish, loss of sleep, nightmares, loss of appetite, nervousness and suffering;
c. Embarrassment and loss of prestige among her co-workers; and 15

d. Attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuing redress for the wrongs she has suffered at the hands of the Defendant.
55. Defendant acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Plainitff-Intervenor’s right not to be discriminated against, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct. Such malice or reckless indifference is part of a pattern of conduct engaged in by Defendant on prior, similar occasions.
WHEREFORE, Plainitff-Intervenor prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order:
a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII;
b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continued violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII;
c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plainitff-Intervenor’s employment opportunities;
d. Defendant be required to compensate, reimburse, and make whole Plainitff-Intervenor for the full value of all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages Plainitff-Intervenor has sustained in the past, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential 16

loss of reputation, and all consequent damages; e. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor punitive damages in such amount as will
punish the Defendant and deter the Defendant and others from like conduct; f. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor the costs of this action, prejudgment interest
and reasonable attorney’s fees; and g. That Plainitff-Intervenor be granted a letter of apology from Defendant
Prime and for such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III EQUAL PAY ACT DEFENDANT PRIME 56. Plainitff-Intervenor incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Petition into this Count III as though fully set forth herein. 57. On information and belief, Plainitff-Intervenor has been paid less than male employees in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. 58. The acts of Defendant Prime in denying equal treatment and equal pay to the Plainitff-Intervenor was done knowingly, willingly and intentionally with the action taken by Defendant Prime to deny rights known to be secured to the Plainitff-Intervenor and for the pecuniary benefit of Defendant Prime, even though such acts are in violation of the law. Such actions taken by Defendant Prime warrant such enhanced recovery as provided under the law. WHEREFORE, Plainitff-Intervenor prays this Court enter judgment under the Equal Pay Act in her favor against Defendant Prime and that the Court enter the following order:
17

a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Equal Pay Act; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continued
violations of the Equal Pay Act; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary
to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plainitff-Intervenor’s employment opportunities; d. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor all back pay differential between what the Plainitff-Intervenor have received and what similarly situated male employees have received for same and similar work over the same period of time; e. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor compensatory damages as allowed for under the EPA; f. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees; and g. That Plainitff-Intervenor be granted a letter of apology from Defendant Prime and for such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
DEFENDANT PRIME 59. Plainitff-Intervenor incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Petition into this Count IV as though fully set forth herein. 60. Defendant Prime represented to Plainitff-Intervenor that she would be paid four-
18

hundred dollars ($400) a week during the first week of her training and five-hundred dollars

($500) a week for the remainder of her training, intending that Plainitff-Intervenor rely on such

representation in hiring on with the Defendant as a CDL truck driver trainee.

61. Defendant Prime’s representation was false.

62. Defendant Prime knew the representation was false at the time it was made.

63. The representation was material to Plainitff-Intervenor’s decision to hire on with

Defendant Prime as a CDL truck driver trainee.

64. Plainitff-Intervenor relied on the representation in hiring on with Defendant Prime

as a CDL truck driver trainee and in so relying Plainitff-Intervenor used that degree of care that

would have been reasonable in Plainitff-Intervenor’s situation.

65. Defendant Prime’s false representation directly caused or directly contributed to

cause damage to the Plainitff-Intervenor, including but not limited to underpayment of wages and

financial hardship due to being on the road without sufficient income to cover expenses.

66. The conduct of Defendant Prime as alleged herein was outrageous because of its

evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, making it subject to an award of

punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plainitff-Intervenor prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor

and against Defendant Prime and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor compensatory damages in such amount as

to fairly and reasonably compensate for the damages she has suffered as a

result of the conduct of the Defendant as alleged herein;

19

b. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor punitive damages in such sum as is appropriate to punish the Defendant and to deter Defendant and others from like conduct in the future;
c. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT V
ASSAULT AND BATTERY DEFENDANT LORMAND 67. Plainitff-Intervenor incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 66 of this Petition into this Count V as though fully set forth herein. 68. Defendant Lormand intentionally touched and fondled Plainitff-Intervenor without her permission or consent. 69. Defendant Lormand thereby caused a contact with Plainitff-Intervenor that was offensive to Plainitff-Intervenor. 70. Such contact as alleged herein would be offensive to a reasonable person. 71. Defendant Lormand made numerous suggestive comments to Plainitff-Intervenor indicating that he desired to have a sexual relationship with her, and he forced Plainitff-Intervenor to remain against her will at his home, suggesting on several occasions that they sleep in the same bed. 72. Defendant Lormand thereby caused Plainitff-Intervenor to be in apprehension of an offensive contact or bodily harm. 73. Such contact as alleged herein would be offensive to a reasonable person.
20

74. As a result of the actions of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein, Plainitff-

Intervenor has suffered, and will continue to suffer in the future, indignity, disgrace, humiliation

and mortification.

75. The conduct of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein was outrageous because of

his evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, making him subject to an award of

punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plainitff-Intervenor prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor

and against Defendant Lormand and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor compensatory damages in such amount as

to fairly and reasonably compensate for the damages she has suffered as a

result of the conduct of the Defendant as alleged herein;

b. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor punitive damages in such sum as is

appropriate to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others

from like conduct in the future;

c. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor the costs of this action, prejudgment interest

and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VI FALSE IMPRISONMENT DEFENDANT LORMAND

76. Plainitff-Intervenor incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 75 of this

Petition into this Count VI as though fully set forth herein.

21

77. Defendant Lormand unlawfully restrained Plainitff-Intervenor against her will by

taking Plainitff-Intervenor to his home, where he forced her to remain for two days.

78. As a result of the actions of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein, Plainitff-

Intervenor Huffman has suffered, and will continue to suffer in the future, embarrassment,

disgrace, humiliation, injury to her feelings and reputation and mental suffering.

79. The conduct of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein was outrageous because of

his evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, making him subject to an award of

punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plainitff-Intervenor prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor

and against Defendant Lormand and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor compensatory damages in such amount as

to fairly and reasonably compensate her for the damages she has suffered

as a result of the conduct of the Defendant as alleged herein;

b. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor punitive damages in such sum as is

appropriate to punish the Defendant and to deter Defendant and others

from like conduct in the future;

c. Awarding Plainitff-Intervenor the costs of this action, prejudgment interest

and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

22

COUNT VII INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
DEFENDANT PRIME 80. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman restates paragraph 1 through 79 above as if fully restated herein and incorporates them by reference. 81. Defendant Prime was repeatedly contacted by Plaintiff-Intervenor with regard to the acts of Defendant Lormand including his comments, general harassment both sexual and otherwise indicating a need for Plaintiff-Intervenor to be removed from the truck and returned home by Defendant Prime away from this specific trucker. Plaintiff-Intervenor further requested Defendant Prime, through its dispatchers, to specifically not say anything to Defendant Lormand until she was safely removed from his truck. At all times, Defendant Prime denied such requests. 82. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that Defendant Lormand had a propensity to sexually harass female trainees including Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman. With such knowledge Defendant Prime negligently assigned Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman to ride and be trained by Defendant Lormand. 83. Being given notice by the Plaintiff-Intervenor of Lormand’s conduct during the trip, necessitated immediate action by Defendant Prime to not only remove her from the truck but also to make arrangements for her safety. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman would be subjected to emotional damages by the conduct of Defendant Lormand and by the circumstances that would likely occur and that immediate attention necessitated the return of Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman to her home or to Springfield and the actions taken by Defendant Lormand properly addressed. To require her to remain in an unknown location, by herself in Louisana where she had no means to return home or to provide
23

for herself, exacerbated and increased the emotional damages and trauma caused by Lormand’s acts.
84. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that to assign Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman to Defendant Lormand would subject her to severe emotional distress.
85. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that to leave Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman in the truck and assign as a trainer, Defendant Lormand, to the Plaintiff-Intervenor would subject her to a high likelihood of sexual harassment, sexual assaults, threats and potentially rape. Such acts by the Defendant Prime are negligent and Defendant Prime knew or should have known that both the assignment to Defendant Lormand as Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman’s trainer and leaving her with Defendant Lormand for any extended period of time would result in and likely cause emotional harm and trauma to the Plaintiff-Intervenor.
86. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman had to removed herself from Defendant Lormand’s truck at a truck stop and then once again, called Defendant Prime and informed them that she needed to return back to Springfield.
87. Defendant Prime took little or no action, and in fact, Huffman had to ultimately find her own transportation back to Springfield. Defendant Prime was negligent in inflicting emotional distress to the Plaintiff-Intervenor after Defendant Lormand’s false imprisonment of her in the following fashion:
a. Failed to immediately remove her from Lormand’s truck and get her back home safely to either Springfield or to her own home after she informed Defendant Prime of his conduct;
b. Defendant Prime failed to address Huffman’s concerns for her safety;
24

d. Defendant Prime placed Huffman in locations where she had no means to support herself, provide for herself or return home. All contributing to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s emotional state of mind after being held hostage.
88. After Defendant Prime learned of Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman being held against her will by Defendant Lormand, then later subjected to the sexual harassment as described above by Defendant Prime’s dispatcher, Woodall, and after Defendant Prime knew of PlaintiffIntervenor Huffman situation, Defendant Prime chose a further course of conduct which was intentional and made with the intent to scare, harm and cause emotional injury damages to Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman. Such acts of Defendant Prime taken against Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman were:
a. Demanding that Huffman completer her one year contract with Prime without providing to her a safe environment to work. Defendant Prime then failed to pay the $5,000 for the 6 weeks of MTC “training” Huffman received, and her medical bills she sustained due to being held against her will and sexual assault of Defendant Lormand. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman was turned over to a collection agency by MTC and has had her credit ruined by being on her credit report.
b. Instituting legal actions, service of process and ultimately attempting to garnish Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman’s wages for certain of the above described costs and reimbursement of such cost.
89. Such acts by Defendant Prime were taken to intimidate, scare, frighten and to cause such harm to Plaintiff-Intervenor that she would not pursue any causes of action against
25

Defendant Prime for the acts of trucker Lormand and dispatcher Woodall and more specifically for the cause of action of sexual harassment.
90. The Defendant Prime knew or should have known that the above actions as described in this Count by Defendant Prime against Plaintiff-Intervenor would cause her severe emotional harm and injury and such actions were in fact taken by Defendant Prime with the intention to cause such harm.
91. Such acts warrant an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff-Intervenor prays judgment in her favor and against the Defendant Prime on her claim of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress and for an award of damages which will properly value the damages, injuries and losses that she has sustained by the acts of Defendant Prime, for an award of punitive damages and for an award for any and all other damages, losses or injuries that she is entitled to under the law and as supported by the facts.
COUNT VIII INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
DEFENDANT LORMAND 92. Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman restates paragraph 1 through 91 above as if fully restated herein and incorporates them by reference. 93. Defendant Lormand told Plaintiff-Intervenor Huffman that she was not going to get off the truck and get away from him, that he was going to take her back to the place he had held her captive against her will. Such acts caused further mental and emotional distress. 94. Such acts by Defendant Lormand were taken to intimidate, scare, frighten and to cause such harm to Plaintiff-Intervenor that she would not pursue any causes of actions against
26

Defendant Lormand and more specifically for the causes of action of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
95. Defendant Lormand knew or should have known that the above actions as described in this count by Defendant Lormand against Plaintiff-Intervenor would cause her severe emotional harm and injury and in fact such actions were in fact taken by Defendant Lormand with the intention to cause such harm.
96. Such acts warrant an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff-Intervenor prays judgment in her favor and against the Defendant Lormand on her claim of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress and for an award of damages which will properly value the damages, injuries and losses that she has sustained by the acts of Defendant Lormand, for an award of punitive damages and for an award for any and all other damages, losses or injuries that she is entitled to under the law and as supported by the facts.
Respectfully Submitted, ROGER G. BROWN AND ASSOCIATES
By /s/Roger G. Brown Roger G. Brown (#29055) 216 East McCarty Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-2960 Telephone - (573) 634-8501 Telecopy - (573) 634-7679
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
27

MONTAGUE, PITTMAN & VARNADO F. Douglas Montague P.O. Drawer 1975 Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39403-1975 Telephone - (601) 544-1234 Telecopy - (601) 544-1280
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA HUFFMAN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically and mailed, postage prepaid, this 3rd day of July, 2002 , to: James C. Sullivan, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, 120 W.12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64105, Ms. JoAnne Spears Jackson, Yates, Mauck, Bohrer, Elliff, Croessmann & Wieland, P.C., Southwest Bancshares Financial Center, 3333 East Battlefield, Suite 1000, Springfield, Missouri 65804, Ms. Rebecca S. Stith, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Robert A. Young Building, 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100, St. Louis, Missouri 63103, Tina G. Fowler, Lathrop & Gage L.C., P.O. Box 4288, Springfield, Missouri 65808-4288 and Doug Montague, P.O. Drawer 1975, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39403-1975.
/s/Roger G. Brown
28

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, et al.

)

)

Plaintiff/Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC., et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-3-ECF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA KING’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff- Intervenor Virginia King (hereafter “King”) by and through her undersigned attorneys, and for her cause of action against the Defendants New Prime, Inc. (hereafter “Prime”) and Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn (hereafter “Littlejohn”) state the following:
PARTIES

1. Plaintiff-Intervenor Virginia King is a resident of the State of Ohio, residing in Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio. She has the capacity to sue.
2. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the federal agency charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, brought the instant action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). It has the capacity to sue.
3. Defendant New Prime, Inc. is a corporation of the State of Nebraska, with its principal place of business located at 2740 North Mayfair, Springfield, Missouri 65808. Defendant Prime is also registered with the State of Missouri under the name Prime, Inc. and conducts business in the State of Missouri under that name. It has the capacity to be sued.
1

4. Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn is a resident of the State of Arkansas, residing in Pulaski County. Defendant Littlejohn at all times relevant herein had numerous contacts and did business within the State of Missouri. Specifically, Defendant Littlejohn, at all relevant times, was an over-the-road truck driver. The main, if not exclusive contracts or employment by Defendant Littlejohn, were for hauling various goods as directed by the Defendant Prime. Those contracts entered into by Defendant Littlejohn with Defendant Prime were all sitused in the State of Missouri. In some instances, litigation involving such contracts was stipulated to to be in this Court or at least in the Courts of Greene County. Some of the tortious acts complained of herein, committed by Defendant Littlejohn, took place in the State of Missouri. Defendant Littlejohn has the capacity to be sued with venue and jurisdiction in this Court.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Plaintiff-Intervenor King brings her cause of action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)("Title VII"), and § 102(d) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. Plaintiff-Intervenor King has the statutory right to intervene in the instant action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 24(a)(1), which grants the right to intervene where a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene. Plaintiff-Intervenor King brings her state claims pursuant to Missouri Tort Law. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s pendent and supplemental state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 6. Defendant Prime is an employer engaged within the meaning of Title VII, §
2

701(b), (g) and (h), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b),(g) and (h). 7. Plaintiff-Intervenor King filed her charge of discrimination with the EEOC. 8. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was employed in the State of Missouri by Defendant
Prime. 9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b) in that Defendant Prime maintains its principal office in this judicial district, and in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s claims occurred in this judicial district. Certain acts by Defendant Littlejohn took place in Missouri. Certain acts more specifically described below were of an ongoing, harassing, intimidating nature, wherein such acts began in the State of Missouri and continued on, as more specifically stated below, in and through other states, all of which caused Plaintiff-Intervenor King great mental and emotional distress. Such acts of Defendant Littlejohn are more specifically stated below.
10. §500.506 et. seq. RSMo. (Missouri Long Arm Statute) confers jurisdiction of this Court over Defendant Littlejohn due to his minimum contacts with the State of Missouri. Such contacts are more specifically alleged below. This Court is bound by the State of Missouri Supreme Court on its interpretation of State Statutes. Institutional Food Marketing Associates, Ltd. v. Golden State Strawberries, Inc. 747 F.2d 448 (8th Cir.1984). The reach of State Long Arm Statute is a question of State law and the Federal Court is bound by the State Supreme Courts interpretation of that Long Arm Statute.
11. Defendant Littlejohn has engaged in the following acts in the State of Missouri, upon which the Missouri Long Arm Statute gives this Court jurisdiction:
a. Transacted business within the State of Missouri;
3

b. Made contracts within the State of Missouri; and c. Committed tortious acts within the State of Missouri. 12. Due to the acts of Defendant Littlejohn, Plaintiff-Intervenor King has sustained actionable consequences in Missouri, specifically the loss of her job, embarrassment and great emotional distress.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 13. Plaintiff-Intervenor King incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Complaint as is fully set forth herein. 14. Defendant Prime, at all relevant times, operated Prime, Inc. in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, and employed Plaintiff-Intervenor King as a truck driver-trainee. 15. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was assigned to Hosea Washington, a male trainer, who stated that he “don’t think that women should be driving trucks...” and would not train PlaintiffIntervenor King what she needed to learn. Plaintiff-Intervenor King requested to be removed from Washington’s truck for failure to be trained. 16. Plaintiff-Intervenor King requested repeatedly to be placed with a female trainer, due to Washington’s comments, prior to being assigned to the male trainer Defendant Littlejohn. 17. Defendant Littlejohn has had numerous contacts with the State of Missouri at all relevant times. Specifically:
a. Defendant Littlejohn entered into various contracts with Defendant Prime, including: (1.) Leased equipment from Defendant Prime (Ex. A). Such contract dated 2/12/97 provided for its situs to be the State of Missouri and venue in this Court and District for causes of action from operation 4

of such equipment. (Many of Defendant Littlejohn’s acts were conducted in the equipment that is subject of this contract, Ex. A.) (2.) An “Independent Contractor Operator Agreement” (Ex. B) dated 2/12/97 was executed between Defendant Littlejohn and Defendant Prime. Such contract provided in part: (a) “... all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this
agreement shall be tried and litigated only in the Court of the State of Missouri of the United States for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division”; (b) The situs of the contract is Greene County, Missouri; and (c) Such contract was a 1 year contract automatically renewable year-to-year. (3.) “The Personal Service Agreement” dated 2/12/97 (Ex. C). By the agreement, Defendant Prime provided to Defendant Littlejohn drivers, such as Plaintiff-Intervenor King, which placed Defendant Littlejohn in a supervisory role over drivers like Plaintiff-Intervenor King, including whether or not she is discharged. Such control also specified Missouri Law was the choice of law. By signing such an agreement Defendant Littlejohn agreed “...that all actions and proceeds arising in connection with this agreement shall be tried and litigated in the Courts of Missouri in the United States for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division. Defendant Littlejohn accepted this Court as proper venue and jurisdiction.
5

(4.) A lease agreement with Defendant Prime (Ex. D) dated 2/12/97 leased certain equipment by Defendant Prime to Defendant Littlejohn. By such lease, Defendant Littlejohn chose Missouri law to construe the contract.
18. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Littlejohn acted on behalf of Defendant Prime as Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s supervisor. Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s employment with Prime originated and was located in Missouri at Defendant Prime’s principal locations. Defendant Littlejohn’s supervisory position originated from and was performed for Defendant Prime. Littlejohn’s principal place of business is in Missouri. Defendant Littlejohn, in effect, became Plaintiff-Intervenor’s supervisor by his performance of the “Personnel Service Agreement” (Ex. C). In such agreement, Defendant Littlejohn executed such contract in Missouri and stipulated to the venue of both State and Federal Courts found in Greene County, Missouri.
19. Defendant Littlejohn committed numerous acts of intentional and negligent infliction of mental distress, including the following:
a. On September 2, 1997, Plaintiff-Intervenor King was approached by Defendant Littlejohn asking King if he could be her trainer and co-driver. Even though Plaintiff-Intervenor wanted a woman trainer and had requested Prime for such, a woman trainer was not provided. Defendant Littlejohn assured King that she could be his co-driver and he her trainer. Such acts and statements by Defendant Littlejohn were made in Springfield, Missouri.
b. Defendant Littlejohn portrayed to Plaintiff-Intervenor King, while at the Springfield terminal, that he was a Christian, did not sleep around, had a 6

girlfriend and wanted this only to be a business relationship. c. Relying upon Littlejohn’s representation, Plaintiff-Intervenor agreed to go
with him as his trainee, and he as her trainer. d. While still in the State of Missouri, Defendant immediately made
inappropriate comments about his relationship with his girlfriend, including private and personal issues and began asking King questions about her personal life. These comments caused great mental anguish and distress to the Plaintiff-Intervenor. e. Defendant Littlejohn suggested that Plaintiff-Intervenor take the bottom bunk and sleep. f. After Plaintiff-Intervenor thanked him, Defendant Littlejohn asked PlaintiffIntervenor if he could sleep with her in that same bunk. PlaintiffIntervenor said no. g. Plaintiff-Intervenor went to the bottom bunk. Soon after PlaintiffIntervenor laid down, Littlejohn stopped and parked the truck. He climbed up to the top bunk upon which he proceeded to reach down and across King, as well as, kept watching her as she tried to sleep. At best to King’s knowledge, they were still in the State of Missouri. h. At this point, Littlejohn had made Plaintiff-Intervenor uncomfortable, embarrassed and distressed. So much so, that she elected to sleep in the front seat of the truck instead of on the bunks. i. From then on while Plaintiff-Intervenor was awake Defendant Littlejohn continually spoke about personal, private and non-business matters usually
7

leading to talk about sex or he would make sexual innuendo comments. Such actions and statements began immediately upon leaving Springfield, and while still in the State of Missouri and continued on throughout the trip. Such statements caused King great mental anguish and distress which continues today. 20. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was sexually assaulted, raped and molested at the hands of Defendant Prime’s trainer, Littlejohn while on his truck. 21. Defendant Littlejohn requested Defendant Prime to remove Plaintiff-Intervenor King from Littlejohn’s truck after he sexually assaulted, raped and molested her. 22. Defendant Littlejohn then drove Plaintiff-Intervenor King to a Motel Six in Texas shortly after the sexual assault. 23. Littlejohn stated that he was headed for Laredo, Texas. He warned King not to tell anyone and especially not to call or tell anyone at Prime. This caused Plaintiff-Intervenor great mental anguish and distress. 24. After giving Plaintiff-Intervenor a warning, Defendent Littlejohnn left for Laredo, Texas. Once Littlejohn left, Plaintiff-Intervenor was not in physical fear that Littlejohn would return to assault her due to him being as late for this next delivery. King was, however, anxious and distressed from the warning Littlejohn to not tell anyone about the rape. 25. Plaintiff-Intervenor King contacted Defendant Prime through dispatcher, Stan Auman, requesting to speak to a female and to be returned to either Springfield or her home via a female trainer or other means of transportation. 26. Dispatcher Stan Auman refused to contact a female and insisted upon placing King on a truck with another male trainer.
8

27. Plaintiff-Intervenor King contacted Defendant Prime to speak to another dispatcher, however, her call was routed back to Auman. Upon King’s explanation that “men want sexual favors” as the reason why she was requesting to talk to a female dispatcher and only drive with a female instructor, Auman further traumatized King by yelling at her that “...the instructors were outstanding family men and they would not do anything of the sort...”or words to that effect, asserting to her that no female trainers were available and refused to provide a female trainer to Plaintiff-Intervenor.
28. The location of where Plaintiff-Intervenor was dropped off was in remote Texas, a place King had never been and a completely foreign place to her. Plaintiff-Intervenor was alone, embarrassed and ashamed. Plaintiff-Intervenor took a shower because she felt dirty. Defendant Littlejohn’s actions after the rape and molestation caused Plaintiff-Intervenor great mental anguish and distress.
29. Plaintiff-Intervenor was subjected to additional mental distress by Defendant Littlejohn after he left the hotel. Defendant Littlejohn took it upon himself to call the hotel and harass King by telling her that “Prime said for him to return her to Springfield”. King became very fearful due to his actions.
30. Even though Plaintiff-Intervenor King had requested a female co-driver to return her to Springfield, due to the above circumstances, Defendant Prime elected to assign another male trainer, Gerald Felders, to return her to headquarters in Springfield, Missouri. King was assured by Prime that Felders would be routed directly back to Springfield where he could drop her off. However, King shortly became aware of the false representation Prime had made to her about being routed directly back to Springfield. Defendant Prime through its dispatch knew that driver Felders was in route to California before he would return back to Springfield, Missouri.
9

31. Upon entering Felders’ truck, Plaintiff-Intervenor King was subjected to Felders’ choice of playing sexually explicit songs which described sexual assaults on women and other violent acts. King requested Felders’ to turn off the offensive music and was told “this is my truck I will play the music I like...”
32. Plaintiff-Intervenor contacted Defendant Prime and complained to a female dispatcher, Kim Haynes, with regard to the offensive music and her need to get back to Prime or her home immediately.
33. Haynes contacted Felders with regard to his choice of music and asked that he not play such music. Felders later yelled at King for complaining about him to Haynes. PlaintiffIntervenor was further traumatized by Felders.
34. Plaintiff-Intervenor King removed herself from Felders truck, contacted Defendant Prime through dispatcher Haynes, explained that she feared that she was pregnant or had contracted some disease from Littlejohn, and needed to see a doctor. Haynes finally sent King a bus ticket to return to her home.
35. Plaintiff-Intervenor King demanded to know what if anything had happened to Defendant Littlejohn in terms of discipline by Defendant Prime. Defendant Prime refused to divulge “personal information” to King.
36. Defendant Prime constructively discharged Plaintiff-Intervenor King on or about September 12, 1997 by creating an intolerable working condition for Plaintiff-Intervenor King, as is described herein and in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).
37. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff-Intervenor King has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, humiliation, prolonged incapacity to work, and inconvenience, lost wages to date and lost wages
10

in the future. 38. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff-Intervenor King has incurred and
continues to incur counseling and medical expenses. 39. Defendant Littlejohn had substantial and ongoing contacts with the State of
Missouri at all times relevant to the facts and causes of this case. Specifically: a. Littlejohn had numerous business contacts and stipulated to the venue and situs of Missouri with regard to those contracts and the conduct of his business; b. He Performed his work under such contracts throughout the State of Missouri in that he would drive his truck wherever Defendant Prime sent him, including the State of Missouri and his terminal was located in the State of Missouri; c. Defendant Littlejohn committed tortious acts in Missouri and committed tortious acts in other states that either began in Missouri, continued on from acts in Missouri and certainly had consequences in Missouri; d. Missouri and this Court have an interest in providing a forum for this cause; and e. The convenience for all parties considered is served by this cause being venued in this jurisdiction and this Court.
COUNTS I AND II TITLE VII AND CHAPTER 214 RSMo. - SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE DEFENDANT PRIME 40. Plaintiff-Intervenor King incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 39 of
11

this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 41. By the unlawful acts alleged above, Defendant Prime has violated Title VII. 42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Prime’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff-
Intervenor King has sustained and is reasonably likely to sustain in the future irreparable harm in the form of both pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, medical and counseling expenses, and attorneys’ fees and expenses.
43. Defendant Prime acted with malice and with reckless indifference to PlaintiffIntervenor King’s right not to be discriminated against, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant Prime and to deter the Defendant Prime and others from like conduct. Such malice or reckless indifference is part of a pattern of conduct engaged in by Defendant Prime on prior, similar occasions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor King prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to Title VII in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order:
a. Declaring all acts in violation of Title VII; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant Prime from continued
violations of Title VII; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary
to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and to not continue to affect Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s employment opportunities; d. Requiring Defendant Prime to compensate, reimburse, and make whole Plaintiff-Intervenor King for the full value of all pecuniary and
12

nonpecuniary damages she has sustained in the past, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back and front pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential loss of reputation, and all consequent damages; e. Awarding her attorneys’ fees, costs and all other damages and losses she is entitled to under the law and the facts of this case.
COUNT III INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
DEFENDANT PRIME 44. Plaintiff-Intervenor King restates paragraph 1 - 43 above as if fully restated herein and incorporates them by reference. 45. Defendant Prime was repeatedly contacted by Plaintiff-Intervenor with regard to the acts of Defendant Littlejohn including his comments, general harassment both sexual and otherwise indicating a need for Plaintiff-Intervenor to be removed from the truck and returned home by Defendant Prime away from this specific trucker. Plaintiff-Intervenor further requested Defendant Prime, through its dispatchers, to specifically assign her to a female trainer and also to return her to Springfield or her home through the use of a female truck driver. At all times, Defendant Prime denied such requests. 46. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that Defendant Littlejohn had a propensity to sexually molest and potentially rape female trainees including Plaintiff-Intervenor King. With such knowledge Defendant Prime negligently assigned Plaintiff-Intervenor King to ride and be trained by Defendant Littlejohn. 47. Being given notice by the Plaintiff-Intervenor of Littlejohn’s conduct during the
13

trip, necessitated immediate action by Defendant Prime to not only remove her from the truck but also to make arrangements for her safety. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that Plaintiff-Intervenor King would be subjected to emotional damages by the conduct of Defendant Littlejohn and by the circumstances that would likely occur and that immediate attention necessitated the return of Plaintiff-Intervenor King to her home or to Springfield and the actions taken by Defendant Littlejohn properly addressed. To require her to remain in a hotel, by herself in Texas where she had no means to return home or to provide for herself, exacerbated and increased the emotional damages and trauma caused by Littlejohn’s acts.
48. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that to assign Plaintiff-Intervenor King to Defendant Littlejohn would subject her to severe emotional distress.
49. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that to leave Plaintiff-Intervenor King in the truck and assign as a trainer, Defendant Littlejohn, to the Plaintiff-Intervenor would subject her to a high likelihood of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, molestation, threats and potentially rape. Such acts by the Defendant Prime are negligent and Defendant Prime knew or should have known that both the assignment to Defendant Littlejohn as Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s trainer and leaving her with Defendant Littlejohn for any extended period of time would result in and likely cause emotional harm and trauma to the Plaintiff-Intervenor.
50. After Plaintiff-Intervenor King had been raped by Defendant Littlejohn, Defendant Prime was then notified by Defendant Littlejohn that he could not work with the Plaintiff-Intervenor and that she should be removed from the truck. Defendant Littlejohn and Defendant Prime, acting together dropped Plaintiff-Intervenor off in a Motel 6 somewhere in the state of Texas without any means for her to return home, return to Springfield, provide for herself, seek medical attention or otherwise be treated or cared for as a result of the injuries that
14

she sustained at the hands of Defendant Littlejohn. 51. Plaintiff-Intervenor King contacted Defendant Prime, informed Prime of
Littlejohn’s sexual assault, her condition, the need for her to return to Springfield or her home, to have a female return a call to her, to be able to talk to a female as to the things that had happened to her at the hands of Defendant Littlejohn and that she needed appropriate care for her condition. Defendant Prime negligently failed to provide for King any means for medical care or to address the injuries and damages she had sustained, and Defendant Prime falsely portrayed to King that she would be immediately returned to Springfield by trucker Felders.
52. Defendant Prime provided transportation indirectly back to Springfield by utilizing trucker Felders to pick up Plaintiff-Intervenor King. Defendant Prime falsely stated to Plaintiff-Intervenor that Felders would take her directly to Springfield when in fact Defendant Prime routed Felders to the State of California to make a delivery and then return to Springfield.
53. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was further subjected to additional emotional trauma by Defendant’s trucker Felders, by his on going playing and utilization of sexually explicit tapes that included references to abuse of women, including the rape of women, and his general dislike for women based upon his conduct towards her. Such facilitated and increased the emotional trauma to Plaintiff-Intervenor who had just been raped by another of Defendant Prime’s truckers, trainer Littlejohn.
54. Plaintiff-Intervenor King removed herself from Defendant Felders’ truck at a truck stop and then once again, called Defendant Prime and informed them that she needed medical care, a bus ticket to return home and that she needed to speak to a woman. At some point in time Plaintiff-Intervenor then informed Kim Haynes, a female dispatcher at Prime, that Defendant Littlejohn had raped her and that she was very concerned about the possibility of a
15

sexually transmitted disease and/or pregnancy and her immediate need for medical care due to being raped by Littlejohn.
55. Defendant Prime took little or no action, and in fact, ultimately only provided her with a bus ticket back home, and eventually said that she could seek some medical care with regard to addressing her concerns as a result of the rape. Defendant Prime was negligent in inflicting emotional distress to the Plaintiff-Intervenor after Defendant Littlejohn’s rape of her in the following fashion:
a. Failed to immediately remove her from Littlejohn’s truck and get her back home safely to either Springfield or to her own home after she informed Defendant Prime of his conduct;
b. Falsely portrayed to her that there was a trucker, Felders, who would treat her with dignity and respect and immediately bring her back to Springfield, when in fact, that was false, and Felders subjected her to further sexual abuse and emotional trauma as described above with no intention of returning her immediately to Springfield. Defendant Prime told Plaintiff-Intervenor that she would be immediately returned to Springfield knowing such representation was false;
c. Defendant Prime failed to address King’s concerns for her necessary medical care and treatment;
d. Defendant Prime placed King in Texas and other locations where she had no means to support herself, provide for herself, get medical care, or return home. All contributing to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s emotional state of mind after being raped. Only after numerous phone calls and pleas was she 16

provided a minimal amount of care addressing her emotional and physical concerns. 56. After Defendant Prime learned of Plaintiff-Intervenor King being raped by Defendant Littlejohn, then later subjected to the sexual harassment as described above by Defendant Prime’s trucker Felders and after Defendant Prime knew of Plaintiff-Intervenor King being stranded in West Texas by herself, the Defendant Prime chose a further course of conduct which was intentional and made with the intent to scare, harm and cause emotional injury damages to Plaintiff-Intervenor King. Such acts of Defendant Prime taken against PlaintiffIntervenor King were: a. Demanding that King reimburse Defendant Prime for cost for her staying in hotels and the cost for returning her to her home; b. Demanding that King completer her one year contract with Prime without providing to her a safe environment to work. Defendant Prime then failed to pay the $5,000 for the 6 weeks of MTC “training” King received, her bus ticket home due to her trauma, and her medical bills she sustained due to the sexually assault, rape and molestation of Defendant Littlejohn. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was turned over to a collection agency by MTC and has had her credit ruined by being on her credit report. c. Making further demand for various costs incurred due to PlaintiffIntervenor needing to be removed from the Littlejohn and Felders’ trucks and clearly cease her training and her returning to her home; d. Defendant Prime’s intentional deducting from Plaintiff-Intervenors’ paycheck the above described costs;
17

e. Instituting legal actions, service of process and ultimately attempting to garnish Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s wages for certain of the above described costs and reimbursement of such cost.
57. Such acts by Defendant Prime were taken to intimidate, scare, frighten and to cause such harm to Plaintiff-Intervenor that she would not pursue any causes of action against Defendant Prime for the acts of trucker Felders and trucker Littlejohn and more specifically for the cause of action of sexual harassment.
58. The Defendant Prime knew or should have known that the above actions as described in this Count by Defendant Prime against Plaintiff-Intervenor would cause her severe emotional harm and injury and such actions were in fact taken by Defendant Prime with the intention to cause such harm.
59. Such acts warrant an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff-Intervenor prays judgment in her favor and against the Defendant Prime on her claim of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress and for an award of damages which will properly value the damages, injuries and losses that she has sustained by the acts of Defendant Prime, for an award of punitive damages and for an award for any and all other damages, losses or injuries that she is entitled to under the law and as supported by the facts.
COUNT IV INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
DEFENDANT LITTLEJOHN
60. Plaintiff-Intervenor King restates paragraph 1 - 59 above as if fully restated herein and incorporates them by reference.
18

61. Defendant Littlejohn contacted Plaintiff-Intervenor King by phone after leaving her at the Motel 6, to warned her about telling Defendant Prime about the sexual assault, rape and molestation. Such acts caused further mental and emotional distress.
62. Defendant Littlejohn also stated to King that “Prime said for him to return her to Springfield...” or words to that effect, further traumatizing King. Plaintiff-Intervenor King contacted Defendant Prime to verify such statement.
63. Such acts by Defendant Littlejohn were taken to intimidate, scare, frighten and to cause such harm to Plaintiff-Intervenor that she would not pursue any causes of actions against Defendant Littlejohn and more specifically for the causes of action of sexual harassment, rape and molestation.
64. Defendant Littlejohn knew or should have known that the above actions as described in this count by Defendant Littlejohn against Plaintiff-Intervenor would cause her severe emotional harm and injury and in fact such actions were in fact taken by Defendant Littlejohn with the intention to cause such harm.
65. Such acts warrant an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff-Intervenor prays judgment in her favor and against the Defendant Littlejohn on her claim of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress and for an award of damages which will properly value the damages, injuries and losses that she has sustained by the acts of Defendant Littlejohn, for an award of punitive damages and for an award for any and all other damages, losses or injuries that she is entitled to under the law and as supported by the facts.
Respectfully Submitted, ROGER G. BROWN AND ASSOCIATES
19

By /s/Roger G. Brown Roger G. Brown (#29055) 216 East McCarty Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-2960 Telephone - (573) 634-8501 Telecopy - (573) 634-7679
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
MONTAGUE, PITTMAN & VARNADO F. Douglas Montague P.O. Drawer 1975 Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39403-1975 Telephone - (601) 544-1234 Telecopy - (601) 544-1280
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA HUFFMAN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was sent electronically and mailed, postage prepaid, this 3rd day of July, 2002 , to: James C. Sullivan, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, 120 W.12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64105, Ms. JoAnne Spears Jackson, Yates, Mauck, Bohrer, Elliff, Croessmann & Wieland, P.C., Southwest Bancshares Financial Center, 3333 East Battlefield, Suite 1000, Springfield, Missouri 65804, Ms. Rebecca S. Stith, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Robert A. Young Building, 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100, St. Louis, Missouri 63103, Tina G. Fowler, Lathrop & Gage L.C., P.O. Box 4288, Springfield, Missouri 65808-4288 and Doug Montague, P.O. Drawer 1975, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39403-1975.
/s/Roger G. Brown
20

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, WILLA BURKE, )

VIRGINIA KING, and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC., )

ABEL JOSEPH LORMAND, SAMUEL )

TURNER, and KENNETH

)

LITTLEJOHN,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KENNETH LITTLEJOHN’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending is Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn’s (“Littlejohn”) motion to dismiss (Doc. # 76) Plaintiff Virginia King’s (“King”) complaint against him. Littlejohn asserts two grounds for dismissal. The first is that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, 1 and the second is that King’s complaint is time-barred. The Court does have personal jurisdiction over Littlejohn, but King’s complaint is time-barred. Therefore, Littlejohn’s motion to dismiss is granted.
New Prime, Inc. is a Nebraska corporation that has its principal place of business in Springfield, Missouri. At all relevant times New Prime employed King as a truck drivertrainee. It also employed Littlejohn as a truck driver-trainer. Littlejohn entered into an “Independent Contractor Operator Agreement” with New Prime, leased equipment from New Prime, and agreed to a “Personal Service Agreement” which enabled him to train drivers for New Prime. Each of these contracts specified Missouri as the choice of both forum and law.

1Littlejohn is an Arkansas resident, and King is an Ohio resident.

King agreed to let Littlejohn train her on September 2, 1997 in Springfield, Missouri. The two left from Springfield on a training trip. While still in Missouri plaintiff alleges that defendant began making inappropriate comments to her. Allegedly these comments continued throughout the trip and lead to Littlejohn sexually assaulting King in Texas.
I. Personal Jurisdiction
The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This Court, when sitting in a diversity action, may assume jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent permitted by Missouri law so long as the exercise is consistent with the Due Process Clause.2 Missouri courts consistently extend the reach of their jurisdiction to the limits permitted by the Constitution. See Institutional Food Marketing Associates, Ltd. v. Golden State Strawberries, Inc., 747 F.2d 448, 453 (8th Cir. 1984).
The “minimum contacts” analysis required by the Fourteenth Amendment entails consideration of the following factors: “(1) the nature and quality of contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of these contacts; (3) the relationship between the contacts and the cause of action; (4) the interest of the forum state; and (5) the convenience of the parties.” Wines v. Lake Havasu Boat Mfg. , 846 F.2d 40, 42 (8th Cir. 1988). The first three of these are of primary importance. E.g., Austad Co. v. Pennie & Edmonds , 823 F.2d 223, 226 (8th Cir. 1987). “Jurisdiction is proper where there is a substantial and continuing relationship purposefully made with a party in the forum state, see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985), so long as ‘maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ International Shoe
2In State ex rel. K-Mart Corp. v. Holliger , the Missouri Supreme Court rejected the “remarkable assertion that the only means by which jurisdiction may be obtained over a foreign corporation is through the state’s long-arm statute,” 986 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Mo. 1999), and instead held that a corporation’s general business activity in a state could give rise to jurisdiction even if the suit does not arise from those contacts.
-2-

Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).” CPC-Rexcell, Inc. v. La Corona Foods, Inc., 912 F.2d 241, 243 (8th Cir. 1990).
The nonresident defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state must be such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there, and it is essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Purposeful availment means that the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must not be random, foruitous, attenuated, or the result of unilateral activity or a third person or another party.
Guiness Import Co. v. Mark VII Distributors, Inc. , 153 F.3d 607, 614 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).
Littlejohn should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Missouri. He purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within Missouri by working here and entering into numerous contracts that specify Missouri as the choice of forum and choice of law. Thus, he invoked the benefits and protections of Missouri’s laws. Littlejohn’s business contacts are closely related to King’s cause of action. The two only met because they worked for the same company, and “The Personal Service Agreement” is the instrument that enabled Littlejohn to train King. Also, King claims that Littlejohn committed tortious acts against her in Missouri. The state has an interest in adjudicating tortious acts that occur within its borders.
In addition, §500.506 RSMo. (Missouri Long Arm Statute) confers jurisdiction of this Court over Defendant Littlejohn. Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of Missouri, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from transacting business within this state, making contracts within this state, and/or committing a tortious act within this state. Littlejohn transacted business within this state. In fact, training King was a business transaction. Littlejohn made several contracts within Missouri, but which the plaintiff and defendant would not have met. Most importantly, King claims that Littlejohn committed tortious acts against her in Missouri.
-3-

Thus, asserting personal jurisdiction over Littlejohn comports with fair play and substantial justice.
II. Statute of Limitations
King’s complaint against Littlejohn is time-barred. King alleges that Littlejohn began inflicting emotional distress on her through inappropriate comments and unwanted touching shortly after they began their trip and while still in Missouri. The culmination of this distress came when Littlejohn sexually assaulted her in Texas on September second or third, 1997. King merely claimed intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress in her January 17, 2001 Corrected Complaint. 3 That charge enjoys a five year statute of limitations, which she easily meets. §516.120(4) RSMo.
Missouri courts, however, have consistently held that “there is no independent action for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the existence of the claim is dependent upon a battery.” K.G. v. R.T.R., 918 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Mo. 1996) (en banc); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 47 (“conduct which is tortious because intended to result in bodily harm to another or in the invasion of any other of his legally protected interests does not make the actor liable for an emotional distress which is the only legal consequence of his conduct.”). The existence of King’s emotional distress claim is dependent upon an alleged battery, the sexual assault in Texas. Therefore, she cannot bring an independent action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. King must claim battery if she is to maintain any complaint at all. In Missouri battery is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. §516.140 RSMo. “To hold that the specific two-year
3While the plaintiff includes the “negligence” label in her Complaint, the defendant correctly points out that the allegations do not support a claim that Littlejohn acted negligently. Rather the allegations are that he engaged in intentional conduct without any reference to the required elements of a negligence claim. Intentional conduct is the foundation of plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, as a matter of law, the only cause of action asserted in plaintiff’s Complaint is for an intentional tort.
-4-

state [i]s not applicable would evade a clearly expressed legislative policy.” K.G., 918 S.W.2d at 800. Under Texas law a person must bring suit for personal injury “not later than two years after the day the cause of action accrues.” Tex. Code Ann. § 16.003(a). This statute not only governs battery, but it also controls intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. See, e.g., Wagner v. Tex. A&M Univ., 939 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (finding claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas law are subject to two-year statute of limitations); Patin v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 865 F. Supp. 365 (E.D. Tex.) aff’d., 69 F.3d 1 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding torts of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by two-year limitation period). Regardless of which state’s law is applied, King clearly does not meet a two-year time limit. Her action is time-barred. The Court grants Littlejohn’s motion to dismiss and dismisses King’s complaint against him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 12, 2002

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-5-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, WILLA BURKE, )

VIRGINIA KING, and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC., )

ABEL JOSEPH LORMAND, SAMUEL )

TURNER, and KENNETH

)

LITTLEJOHN,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ABEL LORMAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending is Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand’s (“Lormand”) motion to dismiss (Doc. # 68) Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman’s (“Huffman”) complaint against him. Lormand asserts two grounds for dismissal. The first is that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him,1 and the second is that Huffman failed to obtain adequate service of process. 2 The Court does have personal jurisdiction over Lormand. His motion to dismiss is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

New Prime, Inc. is a Nebraska corporation that has its principal place of business in Springfield, Missouri. At all relevant times New Prime employed Huffman as a truck driver-trainee. It also employed Lormand as a truck driver-trainer. Lormand entered into

1Lormand is a Louisiana resident, and Huffman is a Mississippi resident.
2This point is premature because the time to complete effective service of process has not yet expired.

an “Independent Contractor Operator Agreement” with New Prime, leased equipment from New Prime, and agreed to a “Personal Service Agreement” which enabled him to train drivers for New Prime. Each of these contracts specified Missouri as the choice of both forum and law.
Lormand took Huffman on a training trip from February 23, 2000 to March 6, 2000. Their trip originated in Springfield, Missouri. While still in Missouri Lormand allegedly informed Huffman that he would “sleep nude or in [his] underwear on the truck, and sometimes [he] might come out in [his] underwear while [she was] driving to smoke a cigarette.” Huffman claims that Lormand subjected her to numerous other sexually oriented comments and physical touchings that were unwelcome and offensive and which a reasonable person would find unwelcome and offensive. These acts began in Missouri and continued throughout the trip.
On or about March 2nd, 2000, Lormand took Huffman to his home in Louisiana. She was allegedly held there against her will for two days. During that time Lormand tried to physically force Huffman into his home and bed.
II. Personal Jurisdiction
The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This Court, when sitting in a diversity action, may assume jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent permitted by Missouri law so long as the exercise is consistent with the Due Process Clause.3 Missouri courts consistently extend the reach of their jurisdiction to the limits permitted by the Constitution. See Institutional Food Marketing Associates, Ltd. v. Golden State Strawberries, Inc., 747 F.2d 448, 453 (8th Cir. 1984).
3In State ex rel. K-Mart Corp. v. Holliger , the Missouri Supreme Court rejected the “remarkable assertion that the only means by which jurisdiction may be obtained over a foreign corporation is through the state’s long-arm statute,” 986 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Mo. 1999), and instead held that a corporation’s general business activity in a state could give rise to jurisdiction even if the suit does not arise from those contacts.
-2-

The “minimum contacts” analysis required by the Fourteenth Amendment entails consideration of the following factors: “(1) the nature and quality of contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of these contacts; (3) the relationship between the contacts and the cause of action; (4) the interest of the forum state; and (5) the convenience of the parties.” Wines v. Lake Havasu Boat Mfg. , 846 F.2d 40, 42 (8th Cir. 1988). The first three of these are of primary importance. E.g., Austad Co. v. Pennie & Edmonds , 823 F.2d 223, 226 (8th Cir. 1987). “Jurisdiction is proper where there is a substantial and continuing relationship purposefully made with a party in the forum state, see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985), so long as ‘maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).” CPC-Rexcell, Inc. v. La Corona Foods, Inc., 912 F.2d 241, 243 (8th Cir. 1990).
The nonresident defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state must be such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there, and it is essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Purposeful availment means that the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must not be random, fortuitous, attenuated, or the result of unilateral activity or a third person or another party.
Guiness Import Co. v. Mark VII Distributors, Inc. , 153 F.3d 607, 614 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).
Lormand should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Missouri. He purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within Missouri by working here and entering into numerous contracts that specify Missouri as the choice of forum and choice of law. Thus, he invoked the benefits and protections of Missouri’s laws. Lormand’s business contacts are closely related to Huffman’s cause of action. The two only met because they worked for the same company, and “The Personal Service Agreement” is the instrument that enabled Lormand to train Huffman. Also, Huffman claims that Lormand committed tortious acts against her in Missouri. The state
-3-

has an interest in adjudicating tortious acts that occur within its borders. In addition, §500.506 RSMo. (Missouri Long Arm Statute) confers jurisdiction of
this Court over Defendant Lormand. Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of Missouri, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from transacting business within this state, making contracts within this state, and/or committing a tortious act within this state. Lormand transacted business within this state. In fact, training Huffman was a business transaction. Lormand made several contracts within Missouri, but for which the plaintiff and defendant would not have met. Most importantly, Huffman claims that Lormand committed tortious acts against her in Missouri. Thus, asserting personal jurisdiction over Lormand comports with fair play and substantial justice. The Court denies Lormand’s motion to dismiss Huffman’s complaint against him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 9, 2002

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-4-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC., )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS-ECF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SAMUEL TURNER’S MOTION TO DISMISS Pending is Defendant Samuel Turner’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. #100). For the
following reasons, Defendant Samuel Turner’s motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND On November 30, 2001, Plaintiff Willa Burke filed her Motion to Intervene. On January 24, 2002, this Court granted Burke’s Motion to Intervene. Thereafter, on March 6, 2002, Plaintiff Burke filed a motion for extension of time to serve Defendant Samuel Turner (“Turner”). The Court granted Plaintiff Burke’s motion on March 19, 2002, allowing Plaintiff to effect service upon Turner no later than May 9, 2002. Between January and June, Plaintiff Burke attempted to serve Turner. Plaintiff Burke unsuccessfully sent a waiver of service via certified and third class mail to Turner’s last known address in Texas. Plaintiff Burke also attempted to have Turner formally served

in Texas by the United American Reporting Service. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent an inquiry to the United States Post Office regarding a possible address for Turner in Concord, California. The Post Office reported that the address was vacant. Next, Plaintiff Burke sent a summons and fee for service to the Dunklin County Sheriff’s Department for service of Samuel Turner. Plaintiff Burke received return of service indicating that Turner was served in the Dunklin County jail. However, Plaintiff Burke later discovered that the wrong Samuel Turner had been served. Plaintiff Burke contacted the Sheriff and instructed him to send a new summons. The wrong Samuel Turner was served again. Finally, the correct Samuel Turner was served on June 12, 2002. On July 1, 2002, Defendant Turner filed this Motion to Dismiss.
II. DISCUSSION According to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court . . . shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified period of time. . . . “ Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Rule also states “provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate time.” Id. In this case, Plaintiff Burke has attempted to serve Defendant on several occasions, thereby, exercising due diligence by her continual attempts to serve Turner. Plaintiff Burke has shown good cause for her failure to serve Turner in the specified time. Additionally, if this motion to dismiss is granted, the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff Burke from her day in court. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 4(m) and in the interest of justice, this

Court retroactively extends the time for Plaintiff Burke to serve Turner and deems the service upon Samuel Turner on June 12, 2002, as timely.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Samuel Turner’s motion to dismiss is

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 30, 2002

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC., )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS-ECF

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT NEW PRIME’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON PLAINTIFF KING’S MHRA CLAIMS; (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF HUFFMAN’S AND PLAINTIFF KING’S INTENTIONAL OR
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS CLAIMS; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT NEW PRIME’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS ON PLAINTIFF KING’S MHRA CLAIMS AND INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM AS MOOT, AND (4) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT
Pending are (1) Defendant New Prime’s (“New Prime”) Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings on Plaintiff King’s Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) Claims and
Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims (Doc. # 95); (2) New
Prime’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff Huffman’s Intentional or
Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim (Doc. # 111); (3) New Prime’s Renewed
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King’s MHRA Claims and Intentional or
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims (Doc. #110); and (4) Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Extension fo Time to File Response to Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.
# 117). For the following reasons, Defendant New Prime’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings on Plaintiff King’s MHRA Claims is GRANTED; Plaintiff Huffman’s and Plaintiff
King’s Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Defendant New Prime’s Renewed Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings is DENIED as MOOT; and, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED AS MOOT.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2001, Cynthia Huffman (“Huffman”) filed her complaint against New Prime and Abel Lormand alleging sexual harassment, sex discrimination, Equal Pay Act violations, fraudulent misrepresentation, false imprisonment, assault and battery. Her suit was consolidated with the Equal Employment Opportunity’s (“EEOC”) suit against New Prime. On January 24, 2002, the Court permitted Plaintiffs Willa Burke (“Burke”) and Virginia King (“King”) to intervene in this suit. On June 14, 2002, the Court directed Plaintiffs to amend their complaints to include additional jurisdictional facts. Plaintiffs Huffman and King filed their amended complaints on July 3, 2002, both alleging claims of sexual harassment under Title VII and the MHRA, and intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress.
On June 19, 2002, New Prime filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King’s MHRA Claims and Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim. After Plaintiffs’ amended complaints were filed, New Prime filed its Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King’s MHRA Claims and Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim, and its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff Huffman’s Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim.
II. STANDARD Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only where the moving party has clearly established that no material issue of fact remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Nat’l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc ., 991 F.2d 426, 428 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 861 (quoting Iowa Beef
2

Processors, Inc. v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 627 F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 1980)). We must accept as true all facts pled by the non-moving party and grant all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in favor of the non-moving party. See id; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court generally must ignore materials outside the pleadings, but it may consider "some materials that are part of the public record or do not contradict the complaint," as well as materials that are "necessarily embraced by the pleadings." Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp. , 186 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 1999); see Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe , 164 F.3d 1102, 1107 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1039, (1999); Piper Jaffray Cos. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 967 F. Supp. 1148, 1152 (D. Minn. 1997).

A. King’s MHRA Claims

III. DISCUSSION

To comply with the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), a claimant must exhaust all administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination within 180 days after “the alleged act of discrimination.” Gipson v. KAS Snacktime Co. , 83 F.3d 225, 228 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.075(1) (1993)). “If the agency takes no action on the charge, the claimant may sue within ninety days of the agency's right-to-sue letter but ‘no later than two years after the alleged cause occurred.’” Id. (quoting Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.111(1) (1993)). If the claimant fails to meet these deadlines, his or her claim is barred. Id. at 228-29 (citations omitted). Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not file her suit within the time limitations. Plaintiff King concedes that her MHRA claims should be dismissed. Pl. Opp. at 1, ¶2. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King’s MHRA Claims is GRANTED.

3

B. King and Huffman’s Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claims
Defendant claims that King’s and Huffman’s Claims of Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress are preempted and barred by the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Laws. The Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law provides, in relevant part, that
[e]very employer subject to the provisions of this chapter shall be liable, irrespective of negligence, to furnish compensation under the provisions of this chapter for personal injury or death of the employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and shall be released from all other liability therefor whatsoever, whether to the employee or any other person. . . . The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee. . . at common law or otherwise, on account of such accidental injury or death, except such rights and remedies as are not provided for by this chapter.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.120.1-2 (1993). The Missouri Supreme Court has held that questions regarding whether “injuries were the product of an accident or of an intentional act by the employer lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission.” Killiam v. J & J Installers, Inc. , 802 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Mo. 1991); see also Whitmore v. O’Connor Mgmt., Inc., 899 F. Supp. 425, 430 (W.D. Mo. 1995) (holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction over common law tort claims arising out of the course of employment until a determination had been made by the proper tribunal).
Plaintiffs’ claims of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress are common law tort claim arising out of the course of employment. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission has not determined whether the alleged torts were intentional in nature. Until such a determination is made, the Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff King and Plaintiff Huffman’s common law tort claims of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress. Defendant seeks judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiffs’ common law tort claims, but the more appropriate procedural remedy is a dismissal without prejudice so that the appropriate tribunal may resolve these issues. Accordingly,
4

the Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff Huffman’s claim of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress (Count VII) and Plaintiff King’s claim of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress (Count III).

C. Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King’s MHRA Claims and Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claims
The Court has ruled Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King’s MHRA Claims and Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claims. Therefore, Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED AS MOOT.

D. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Defendant’s Motions for Judgment on Pleadings. Plaintiffs filed their responses. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED AS MOOT.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant New Prime’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King’s MHRA Claims is GRANTED; Plaintiff Huffman and Plaintiff King’s Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Defendant New Prime’s Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED AS MOOT; and, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: September 13, 2002

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC., )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS-ECF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ABEL LORMAND’S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS Pending is Defendant Abel Lormand’s Second Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. #131).
For the following reasons, Defendant Abel Lormand’s motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND On March 29, 2001, Plaintiff Huffman filed her complaint against New Prime, Inc. and Abel Lormand. On January 10, 2002, Plaintiff mailed Defendant Lormand a Notice and Acknowledgment for Service by Mail. Defendant Lormand signed the acknowledgment on January 29, 2002, but returned it to Plaintiff’s counsel without signing the Waiver of Service of Summons. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately sent Defendant Lormand a copy of the Notice and Acknowledgment accompanied by a letter informing Defendant Lormand that he had not signed the waiver and the cost related to personal

service. On March 6, 2002, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to serve Defendant Lormand. This Court granted her extension and permitted her to serve Defendant Lormand no later than May 9, 2002. During this period of time, Plaintiff hired a process server who attempted to serve Defendant Lormand on fifteen occasions; however, it was not until May 15, 2002, that the service process was successful and Defendant Lormand was served. Defendant Lormand filed his Second Motion to Dismiss on August 16, 2002.
II. DISCUSSION Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, “[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court . . . shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified period of time. . . . “ Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “[P]rovided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate time.” Id. In this case, Plaintiff Huffman unsuccessfully attempted to serve Defendant Lormand on several occasions. Plaintiff attempted service by mail, which was acknowledged by Defendant Lormand but did not sign the Waiver of Service, and Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Lormand by hiring a process server, who attempted service on fifteen occasions. Additionally, Plaintiff successfully served Defendant Lormand only six days after the time to serve had expired. Plaintiff Huffman exercised due diligence by continually attempting to serve
2

Lormand. Plaintiff Huffman has shown good cause for her failure to serve Lormand in the specified time. In accordance with Rule 4(m), this Court retroactively extends the time for Plaintiff Huffman to serve Lormand and deems the service upon Abel Lormand on May 15, 2002, as timely.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Abel Lormand’s second motion to dismiss is

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 17, 2002

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC., )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS-ECF

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT ABEL LORMAND’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT VI OF PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA HUFFMAN’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA HUFFMAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT ABEL LORMAND’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pending are Defendant Abel Lormand’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count VI of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 297), and Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman’s Motion to Strike Defendant Abel Lormand’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 309). For the following reasons, Defendant Abel Lormand’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman’s Motion to Strike Defendant Abel Lormand’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND Because both motions involve a narrow issue in this case, the Court will only identify those facts that relate to that issue. Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman filed her Seconded Amended Complaint in this matter on July 3, 2002. Count VI sought recovery from Defendant Abel Lormand for false imprisonment. Plaintiff alleged that she was held against her will by Defendant for two days. On March 31, 2003, Defendant Abel

Lormand filed his Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count VI of Plaintiff Huffman’s Seconded Amended Complaint arguing that Huffman could not establish the essential elements for a claim of false imprisonment. On April 28, 2003, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman filed a Motion to Strike Defendant Lormand’s Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Lormand’s motion violated Local Rule 56.1(a).
II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A moving party is entitled to summary judgment on a claim only if there is a showing that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See generally Williams v. City of St. Louis , 783 F.2d 114, 115 (8th Cir. 1986). "[W]hile the materiality determination rests on the substantive law, it is the substantive law's identification of which facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant that governs." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 664 (8th Cir. 1992). In applying this standard, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 588-89 (1986); Tyler v. Harper, 744 F.2d 653, 655 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1057 (1985). However, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the . . . pleadings, but . . . by affidavits or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56], must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to Plaintiff Huffman’s claim under Count VI of her Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant Lormand’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
III. MOTION TO STRIKE Plaintiff Huffman moves to strike Defendant Lormand’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 56.1(a) arguing that Defendant’s motion
2

violates Local Rule 56.1(a) because the motion (1) fails to begin with a concise statement of uncontroverted material facts, (2) fails to number the material facts, (3) fails to reference to the record, and (4) incorporates material facts with argument. Local Rule 56.1(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he suggestions in support of a motion for summary judgment shall begin with a concise statement of uncontroverted material facts. Each fact shall be set forth in a separately numbered paragraph. Each fact shall be supported by reference to where in the record the fact is established.” L.R. 56.1(a).
While the Court is concerned with Defendant interspersing facts with argument, the Court was able to identify those portions of Defendant’s suggestions that were fact and those that were argument. Defendant’s failure to cite to the record did not hamper the Court’s ability to locate the record that supported the facts because the issue presented in the motion was rather concise. Because the Court was able to identify the narrow issue in Defendant’s motion, locate the essential portions of the accompanying record and rule the motion, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant Lormand’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Abel Lormand’s Motion to Dismiss Count VI of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman’s Second Amended Complaint is DENIED, and Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman’s Motion to Strike Defendant Abel Lormand’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 18, 2003

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, WILLA BURKE, )

VIRGINIA KING, and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC.; )

ABEL LORMAND, and SAMUEL

)

TURNER,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS-ECF

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT NEW PRIME, INC.’S MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS OR TO ORDER SEPARATE TRIALS; (2) DENYING DEFENDANT ABEL LORMAND’S MOTION TO SEVER; AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT SAMUEL TURNER’S MOTION TO SEVER
Pending are Defendant New Prime, Inc.’s Motion to Sever Plaintiffs’ Claims or to
Order Separate Trials (Doc. # 330), Defendant Abel Lormand’s Motion to Sever (Doc. #
340), and Defendant Samuel Turner’s Motion to Sever (Doc. # 342). For the following
reasons, Defendants’ motions are denied.

I. PRIME’S MOTION TO SEVER OR ORDER SEPARATE TRIALS Defendant New Prime, Inc. (“Prime”) first argues that Plaintiffs claims are improperly joined under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 20 permits Plaintiffs with separate claims to join in a single action if their claims “aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all those persons will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 20(a). The purpose of Rule 20 is to “promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of disputes . . .” Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 497 F.2d 1330, 1332 (8th Cir. 1974). “Under the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.” Id. at 1332-33 (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966)).
For the parties to be appropriately joined under Rule 20(a), commonality of both fact and law must exist. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiffs’ claims involve distinct factual scenarios, there are threads of fact and law common to all of the claims. For example, Plaintiffs were all truck driver trainees with Prime; each Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to prohibited conduct by her trainer; the individual Defendants were instructed by Prime on how to train a trainee; each Plaintiff alleges that she reported the prohibited conduct to Prime; and, each Plaintiff alleges that Prime failed to respond in a fashion required by law. In this sense, like issues of both fact and law are present throughout Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court believes the parties are properly joined under Rule 20, and Plaintiffs’ claims should be tried in a single trial. Additionally, one trial promotes judicial economy and expedites the final determination of these disputes.
Prime also argues that a single trial will confuse the jury and prejudice Prime. “When actions involving common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint . . . trial or any or all matters in issue in the actions . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Alternatively, the court may order separate trials on claims “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). The Court concludes that because Plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law and fact, their claims should be tried jointly. A single trial should not result in unfair prejudice to Prime. Any possibility of juror confusion can be cured by proper a limiting instruction. The jury should have no
2

difficulty compartmentalizing the evidence; that is, considering the evidence relating to each Plaintiff and Defendant only in regard to that Plaintiff and Defendant. Accordingly, Prime’s Motion to Sever or Order Separate Trials is denied.

II. LORMAND’S AND TURNER’S MOTIONS TO SEVER Defendant Abel Lormand (“Lormand”) and Defendant Samuel Turner (“Turner”) request that this Court sever Plaintiffs’ claims against the individual Defendants and Prime and try the claims separately pursuant to Rules 20(b) and 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Similar to Prime, Lormand and Turner argue that trying all of Plaintiffs’ claims in one trial would cause juror confusion and prejudice to Defendants. Consistent with the discussion regarding Prime’s Motion to Sever, the Court concludes that trying Plaintiffs’ claims in one trial will not result in unfair prejudice to the individual Defendants, and any possibility of juror confusion can be cured by limiting instructions. Lormand’s and Turner’s Motions to Sever are denied.

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant New Prime, Inc.’s Motion to Sever or Order Separate Trials is denied, Defendant Abel Lormand’s Motion to Sever is denied, and Defendant Samuel Turner’s Motion to Sever is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 12, 2003

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, WILLA BURKE, )

VIRGINIA KING, and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC.; )

ABEL LORMAND, and SAMUEL

)

TURNER,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS-ECF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ABEL LORMAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT VIII OF PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA HUFFMAN’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pending is Defendant Able Lormand’s Motion to Dismiss Count VIII of Plaintiff

Cynthia Huffman’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 411). The deadline for

dispositive motions was April 8, 2003. Because Defendant Lormand failed to timely file

his dispositive motion, it is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 19, 2003

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, et al.,
vs. NEW PRIME, INC., et al.,

) ) Plaintiffs,, ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant. )

No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS

VERDICTS A THROUGH J

VERDICT A

NOTE:

Complete this form by writing in the name required by your ve ict.

On the claim of plaintiffs Cynthia Huffman and EEOC for the claim of

20 , harassment as defined in Instruction No.

we, the undersigned jurors, find in

favor of:

E50C......

or

(Defendant New P ime, Inc.)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is i favor of

Plaintiffs Cynthia Huffman and EEOC.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Cynthia uffman on

her claim of sexual harassment as follows:

For actual damages:

$__-=~~~~o~o__o _~_D_-_-__ (state the amount or, f none,
write the word "none')

For punitive damages:

$ 0o 0)000 ~ (state the amount or, f none,
write the word "none')

c

VERDICT B

NOTE:

Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiff Cynthia Huffman for apprehension of being offensively

LiD , touched by Abel Lormand as defined in Instruction No.

we, the undersigned

jurors, find in favor of:

(Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman)

or

(Defendant Abel Lormand)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of

Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Cynthia Huffman on

her claim for apprehension of an offensive touching as follows:

For actual damages:

$_______________ (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

For punitive damages:

$ - - - - - - - - (state the amount or, if none,
write the word •inone")

c

VERDICTC

NOTE:

Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiff Cynthia Huffman for offensive touching by Abel Lormand

30_, as defined in Instruction No.

we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor of:

(Defendant Abel Lormand)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of

Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Cynthia Huffman on

her claim for offensive touching as follows:

c

For actual damages:

$_ _kl--=o__k..'--->ll!e,....-=--- (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

For punitive damages:

$ _ _1_0_._1__0__;;;0_0_0 _0 _ (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

DQAT(ELDJ: OA~e.c,)~ Ofe.wQt..ab e;c=m19~, bl

Ot:J c3
~

/)

~

~(IJLa, 6 - £

1(~.~2 4 VI!\~~

(,_~~

c

c

NOTE:

VERDICTD Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiff Cynthia Huffman against Abel Lormand for being

34 , restrained against her will as defined in Instruction No.

we, the undersigned

jurors, find in favor of: . (Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman)

br=' or

IQ

loc~tao.~
(De endant Abel Lormand)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of

Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Cynthia Huffman on

her claim for being restrained against her will as follows:

For actual damages:

$________________ (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

For punitive damages:

$ - - - - - - - - - - - (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

c

c

NOTE:

VERDICT E Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiffs Virginia King and EEOC for the claims of sexual

39 , harassment as defined in Instruction No.

we, the undersigned jurors, find in

favor of:

(Plaintiffs Virginia King and EEOC)

or

(Defendant New Prime, lAc.)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of

Plaintiffs Virginia King and EEOC.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Virginia King on her

c

claim of sexual harassment as follows:

For actual damages:

$_ _ _ _ _ _ __

(state the amount or, if none,

write the word "none")

For punitive damages:

$ - - - - - - - - (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

DQA~TEQD.: ,;S·'Q{pf: e~..~ ,r JC- f ~003~·f).~

~a.~~/

6\R{~w._~

~

c

c

VERDICT F

44 NOTE:

Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiffs Virginia

and the EEOC for the claim of constructive

discharge as defined in Instruction No.

, we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor

of:

(Plaintiffs Virginia King and EEOC)

or

(Defendant New Prim~. Inc.)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of

Plaintiffs Virginia King and EEOC.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Virginia King on her

claim of constructive discharge as fo!lows:

c

For lost wages from October 1, 1997, through the date of your verdict minus the amount of earnings that plaintiff received from other employment

during that time:

$_______________ (state the amount or, if none,

write the word "none")

For actual damages:

$_______________ (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

For punitive damages:

$ - - - - - - - - - (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

DATED: ~'ef>{toYh.-h'f' r= /Cf, ~()03
QRau,Q,~:CQ&MQh.Jb ./ _;t'_Ji

[).

~

~"-!o~

1Sv.C.!4; !M~~

C-~.~

Q>L)

i!olu,L /l}LR tr
c

c

NOTE:

VERDICT G Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiffs Willa Burke and EEOC for the claims of sexual

50 , harassment as defined in Instruction No.

we, the undersigned jurors, find in

favor of:

(Plaintiffs Willa Burke and EEOC)

or

(Defendant New Prime, Inc.)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of

Plaintiffs Willa Burke and EEOC.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Willa Burke on her

c

claim of sexual harassment as follows:

For actual damages:

$_ _ _ _ _ _ __

(state the amount or, if none,

write the word "none'•)

For punitive damages:

$ - - - - - - - - (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

c

c

NOTE:

VERDICT H Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiffs Willa Burke and EEOC for the claim of constructive

5 5 , discharge as defined in Instruction No.

we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor

of:

(Plaintiffs Willa Burke and EEOC)

or

(Defendant New Pfime, Inc.)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of

Plaintiffs Willa Burke and EEOC.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Willa Burke on her

claim of constructive discharge as follows:

For lost wages from November 13, 2000, through the date of your verdict

minus the amount of earnings that plaintiff received from other employment

during that time:

$

(state the amount or, if none, write the word "none")

For actual damages: For punitive damages:

$_______________ (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")
$ - - - - - - - - - - - (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

c

NOTE:

VERDICT I
Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiff Willa Burke for apprehension of being offensively

h l . touched by Samuel Turner as defined in Instruction No.

we, the undersigned

jurors, find in favor of: .

(Plaintiff Willa Burke)

or

& w.-.. \.L -e<\ \ kd' n :e..r (Defendant Samuel Turner)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of

plaintiff Willa Burke.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Willa Burke on her

c

claim for apprehension of an offensive touching as follows:

For actual damages:

$_______________ (state the amount or, if none,

write the word "none")

For punitive damages:

$ - - - - - - - - - (state the amount or, if none,
write the word "none")

c

c

NOTE:

VERDICT J
Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiff Willa Burke for offensive touching by defendant Samuel

Turner as defined in Instruction No. {r;(.p , we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor of:

Sa e! wu..

tlf' l

ll\-.€e.--

(Plaintiff Willa Burke) .

or

(Defendant Samuel Turner)

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of

Plaintiff Willa Burke.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Willa Burke on her

claim for offensive touching as follows:

For actual damages:

$_______________ (state the amount or, if none,

c

For punitive damages:

write the word "none")
$ - - - - - - - - - - - (state the amount or, if none,

write the word "none")

------------

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, et al.,
vs. NEW PRIME, INC., et al.,

) ) Plaintiffs,, ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant. )

No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS

VERDICT C

VERDICTC

NOTE:

Complete this form by writing in the name required by your ver ict.

On the claim of plaintiff Cynthia Huffman for offensive touching by Ab I Lormand

n:efined in l~struction No. ~ we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor t

VL

lA-

NOTE:

Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is i favor of

Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Cynthia uffman on

her claim for offensive touching as follows:

For actual damages:

$____./"""".".-=e~o"-----

(state the amount or, f none, write the word "none"

For punitive damages: $

(state the amount or, f none, write the word "none')

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, WILLA BURKE, )

VIRGINIA KING, and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC.; )

ABEL LORMAND, and SAMUEL

)

TURNER,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS-ECF

ORDER ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFF HUFFMAN’S CLAIMS AND THE EEOC’S CLAIMS RELATED THERETO, PLAINTIFF BURKE’S CLAIMS AND THE EEOC’S CLAIMS RELATED THERETO,
AND PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA KING’S CLAIM OF CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND THE EEOC’S CLAIM RELATED THERETO

Plaintiffs filed a multi-count Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Cynthia Huffman (“Huffman”) and the EEOC against New Prime, Inc. (“Prime”) on the claim of sexual harassment and a verdict in favor of Huffman and against Defendant Abel Lormand (“Lormand”) on her claim of battery. The jury also returned verdicts in favor of Prime with regard to all the claims asserted by Plaintiff Virginia King (“King”) and Plaintiff Willa Burke (“Burke”) and the EEOC’s claims related thereto. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant Samuel Turner with regard to Burke’s claims of assault and battery. However, on December 17, 2003, the Court granted Burke and the EEOC’s Motions for New Trial with regard to Burke’s claim of sexual harassment and against Prime.
When multiple claims for relief are presented in a single action, Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits “entry of a final judgment as to one or more but

fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Given that (1) all claims, with the exception of King’s and the EEOC’s claims of sexual harassment against Prime, have been resolved by this Court, and (2) the remaining claim is factually distinct from those claims that have been resolved, the Court sees no just reason for delaying entry of final judgment.
Accordingly, a final judgment will be issued as follows: (1) in favor of Plaintiffs Huffman and the EEOC and against Defendant Prime on the
claim of sexual harassment; (2) in favor of Defendant Prime and against Plaintiffs Huffman and the EEOC on the
claim of constructive discharge; (3) in favor of Plaintiff Huffman and against Defendant Lormand on her claim of
battery; (4) in favor of Defendant Lormand and against Plaintiff Huffman on her claim of
assault; (5) in favor of Defendant Prime and against Plaintiffs Burke and the EEOC on the
claims of constructive discharge and sexual harassment; (6) in favor of Defendant Turner and against Plaintiff Burke on her claims of assault
and battery; (7) in favor of Defendant Prime and against Plaintiffs King and the EEOC on the claim
of constructive discharge; and (8) in favor of Plaintiff EEOC with respect its equitable relief requests of affirmative
relief for Plaintiff Huffman, the posting of notices and sexual harassment training. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: January 23, 2004

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, WILLA BURKE, )

VIRGINIA KING, and EQUAL

)

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC.; )

ABEL LORMAND, and SAMUEL

)

TURNER,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS-ECF

AMENDED ORDER ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFF HUFFMAN’S CLAIMS AND THE EEOC’S CLAIMS RELATED THERETO,
PLAINTIFF BURKE’S CLAIMS AND THE EEOC’S CLAIMS RELATED THERETO, AND PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA KING’S CLAIM OF CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND THE EEOC’S CLAIM RELATED THERETO

Plaintiffs filed a multi-count Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Cynthia Huffman (“Huffman”) and the EEOC against New Prime, Inc. (“Prime”) on the claim of sexual harassment and a verdict in favor of Huffman and against Defendant Abel Lormand (“Lormand”) on her claim of battery. The jury also returned verdicts in favor of Prime with regard to all the claims asserted by Plaintiff Virginia King (“King”) and Plaintiff Willa Burke (“Burke”) and the EEOC’s claims related thereto. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant Samuel Turner with regard to Burke’s claims of assault and battery. However, on December 17, 2003, the Court granted King and the EEOC’s Motions for New Trial with regard to King’s claim of sexual harassment and against Prime.
When multiple claims for relief are presented in a single action, Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits “entry of a final judgment as to one or more but

fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Given that (1) all claims, with the exception of King’s and the EEOC’s claims of sexual harassment against Prime, have been resolved by this Court, and (2) the remaining claim is factually distinct from those claims that have been resolved, the Court sees no just reason for delaying entry of final judgment.
Accordingly, a final judgment will be issued as follows: (1) in favor of Plaintiffs Huffman and the EEOC and against Defendant Prime on the
claim of sexual harassment; (2) in favor of Plaintiff Huffman and against Defendant Lormand on her claim of
battery; (3) in favor of Defendant Lormand and against Plaintiff Huffman on her claim of
assault; (4) in favor of Defendant Prime and against Plaintiffs Burke and the EEOC on the
claims of constructive discharge and sexual harassment; (5) in favor of Defendant Turner and against Plaintiff Burke on her claims of assault
and battery; (6) in favor of Defendant Prime and against Plaintiffs King and the EEOC on the claim
of constructive discharge; and (7) in favor of Plaintiff EEOC with respect its equitable relief requests of affirmative
relief for Plaintiff Huffman, the posting of notices and sexual harassment training. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: January 23, 2004

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC. )

and ABEL JOSEPH LORMAND,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-3-ECF

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a PRIME, INC. )

and ABEL JOSEPH LORMAND,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3373-CV-S-3-ECF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Pending is Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman’s Motion to Consolidate (Doc. # 13). For good cause stated, the motion is GRANTED. Cynthia Huffman vs. New Prime, Inc. d/b/a Prime, Inc. and Abel Joseph Lormand (Case No. 01-3144-ODS-S-3-ECF) is hereby consolidated with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. New Prime, Inc. d/b/a Prime, Inc., (Case No. 01-3373-CV-S-ODS-ECF). The new consolidated case number is 01-3144CV-S-3-ECF. All future documents shall be filed under the case number 01-3144-CV-S-3ECF.

Case 6:01-cv-03144-ODS Document 16 Filed 08/17/2001 Page 1 of 2

The parties are directed to file a joint proposed scheduling order within thirty days

from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 17, 2001

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Case 6:01-cv-03144-ODS Document 16 Filed 08/17/2001 Page 2 of 2

 
 Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
2003 WL 22424878 United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division.
Cynthia HUFFMAN, Willa Burke, Virginia King, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiffs, v.
NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a Prime, Inc., Abel Lormand, and Samuel Turner, Defendants.
No. 01–3144–CV–S–ODS–ECF. | filed March 28, 2001. | July 24, 2003. | terminated Sept. 19, 2003. | last filing Oct. 23, 2003.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Rebecca S. Stith, St. Louis, MO, Lead Attorney and Andrea L. Taylor, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Kansas City, KS, Attorneys to be Noticed, representing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Plaintiff).
Kendall McPhail, Lathrop & Gage, L.C., Springfield, MO, Attorney to be Noticed, representing Abel Joseph Lormand and Samuel Turner, (Defendants).
James C. Sullivan and Monica Fanning, Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Kansas City, MO, and Joanne Spears Jackson, Yates, Mauck, Bohrer, et al, Springfield, MO., Attorneys to be Noticed, representing New Prime, Inc., (Defendant).
Roger G. Brown, Roger G. Brown & Associates, Jefferson City, MO, F. Douglas Montague, III, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, Hattiesburg, MO, Attorneys to be Noticed, representing Cynthia Huffman, Willa Burke and Virginia King,(Plaintiff).
Opinion
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT PRIME’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF HUFFMAN’S CLAIMS; (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT PRIME’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF BURKE’S
CLAIMS; (4) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT PRIME’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF KING’S CLAIMS; (5) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT PRIME’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS ON ITS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (6) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SMITH, J.
*1 Pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 294), Defendant New Prime’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman and Claims of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Relating to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman (Doc. # 300), Defendant Prime’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims of Plaintiff Willa Burke and Claims of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Relating to Plaintiff Willa Burke (Doc. # 302), Defendant Prime’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims of Plaintiff Virginia King and Claims of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Relating to Virginia King (Doc. # 304), Defendant Prime’s Request for Oral Arguments on its Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 326), and Plaintiffs’ Request for Oral Arguments on their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 331). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, Prime’s Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and Defendant’s and Plaintiffs’ Requests for Oral Arguments are DENIED AS MOOT.
1

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Cynthia Huffman (“Huffman”), Willa Burke (“Burke”) and Virginia King (“King”) were all employed by Defendant New Prime (“Prime”). Abel Lormand (“Lormand”), Samuel Turner (“Turner”) and Kenneth Littlejohn (“Littlejohn”)1 were lease-operator drivers2 who leased a tractor unit from Success Leasing, a Prime company, then leased the tractor unit back to Prime. Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn entered into Independent Contractor Operating Agreements with Prime, which provided that “[t]he parties intend to create by this agreement the relationship of Carrier and Independent Contractor and not an employer/employee relationship.” Under the lease contract, the lease-operators could only drive loads for Prime. Prime or the lease-operator could terminate the lease in accordance with the terms set forth in the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement.
Lease-operators were paid on a gross per mile basis; Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn were paid 72% of the line haul revenue for the freight transported with a minimum of eighty cents per dispatched mile. They were paid on a weekly basis with Prime deducting the cost of the lease of the trailer from their compensation. Prime reported the lease-operator’s gross income to the Internal Revenue Service on a Form 1099.
Lease-operators were responsible for their own withholding taxes and were required to obtain insurance. A lease-operator had to pay the $500 insurance deductible for damage to customers’ cargo or Prime’s trailers. They were also responsible for their own expenses, such as fuel, fuel taxes, tolls, ferries, maintenance, repairs, and costs associated with loading and unloading the trailers. They were required to receive permission to have passengers ride along with them, submit to random drug tests, and wash the trailer. Prime made health insurance available to lease-operators, but Prime did not pay any portion of the lease-operator’s insurance premium.
*2 Loads were assigned to the lease-operators by Prime’s Fleet Managers, also known as Dispatchers, who also supervised the lease-operators and answered questions lease-operators had in carrying out their responsibilities. Lease-operators were free to accept or deny loads, decide what days of the week and hours they wish to work, and take vacation and time off whenever desired. Lease-operators could choose the route to make their delivery; however, if the route chosen by the lease-operator was longer than Prime’s computer system allowed, the lease-operator received payment according to the shorter route articulated in Prime’s computer system.
Lease-operators could increase their mileage, and, thus, their revenue, by engaging a “second seat” driver. A second seat driver was a licensed eighteen-wheel tractor-trailer driver who accompanied the lease-operator and drove the lease-operator’s tractor, thereby increasing the number of miles driven without violating federal and state “hours of service” regulations. In order to have a second seat driver assigned to a lease-operator’s tractor, Prime had to approve the assignment. Lease-operators were permitted to use Prime’s driver-trainees (“trainees”) as second seat drivers. Lease-operators paid the second seat driver’s salary and worker’s compensation insurance, regardless of whether the second seat driver was a trainee or not. Trainees received W–2 forms from Prime that identified Prime as the trainee’s employer,3 and Prime determined the trainee’s rate of pay.
Beginning in 1997, Prime began an orientation seminar called Training the Trainer (“TnT”) to instruct truck drivers who were willing to train new drivers. Trainers were expected to instruct the trainees in accordance with Prime’s training schedule, which encompassed a six-week progression of developing the necessary skills to operate a truck. The trainer was expected to give the trainee feedback regarding the trainee’s performance during training. Additionally, Fleet Managers could take into consideration a trainer’s evaluation of a trainee’s progress when deciding whether to upgrade a trainee.
Huffman began working as a driver associate for Prime on February 22, 2000. Although Huffman requested a female Trainer, Huffman was matched with Lormand, and they began their first trip on February 23, 2000, to Vancouver, Washington. Huffman alleged that she was sexually harassed during the trip to Vancouver, and sexually harassed again once in Louisiana after she and Lormand returned from their trip to Vancouver. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Huffman (which the Court must do), the record contains facts that support her claims of sexual harassment. A full discussion of the incidents that occurred is not required because the issues raised in the parties’ motions do not pertain to the details of the incidents.
Huffman called Stan Woodall, her dispatcher, immediately after the incident that occurred in Vancouver and a couple times during her time in Louisiana, complaining about Lormand’s behavior and asked permission to get off of Lormand’s truck. After she complained, she was directed to stay on the truck until it arrived in Houston. The truck arrived in Houston on March 6, 2000, and Huffman found a ride back to Prime with another driver. Huffman left Prime to take care of her mother and because she was upset by her experience with Lormand. She sought counseling to cope with the emotional distress
2

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
caused by her experience with Lormand.
*3 Burke began working as a driver associate for Prime on October 6, 1999. Upon hiring, Burke attended a three-day orientation. Prior to November 30, 1999, Burke had been trained by Dwayne White, Roger Paulish and Daniel Black. On November 30, 1999, she was assigned as Turner’s trainee and remained his trainee until December 6, 1999. On November 30, 1999, they departed from Springfield, Missouri, for Florida and arrived on December 2, 1999. Burke claims that she was sexually harassed on December 2, 1999. Burke and Turner were then dispatched to another location in Florida, followed by another dispatch to pick up a load in Tennessee and deliver it to Ontario, California. They left for California on December 3, 1999. No incidents of sexual harassment occurred on December 3, 4 or 5. Burke alleges that Turner sexually assaulted her again on December 6, 1999, after they delivered the load in California. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable Burke, the Court finds that Burke has sufficiently alleged facts that support her claims of sexual harassment. As previously noted, it is unnecessary for the Court to go into detail with regard to these incidents.
On December 6, 1999, Burke called the dispatch office at Prime. During the conversation, she told a dispatcher that she no longer felt safe in Turner’s truck and had to get off. The dispatcher first tried to convince Burke to remain on the truck; however, after Burke became upset and described the incident, Burke was given the authorization to get off the truck and check into a motel. On December 7, 1999, Burke contacted her dispatcher to ask about the status of another trainer and mentioned to him that an alleged incident of sexual assault had occurred. On December 9, 1999, Burke reported the incident of sexual harassment to the California police. Eventually, Burke’s husband went to California to pick her up and bring her home. After returning home, Burke filed a worker’s compensation claim and received benefits. She made a written statement about the alleged incident to Prime on December 12, 1999. After seeing mental heath care providers, Burke was released to return to work but lacked confidence that she could drive a truck. As late as March 2000, Burke still considered herself a Prime employee.
King began working as a driver associate for Prime on August 20, 1997. Upon hiring, King attended a three or four-day orientation. During orientation, King was told that if she had any problems she was to contact her dispatcher. After an unsuccessful assignment with a male trainer, King requested that she be assigned to a female trainer. King met Littlejohn on September 2, 1997, after Littlejohn overheard King asking a female trainer if King could be her trainee. After Littlejohn’s assurance that he would behave appropriately toward King, she agreed to drive with Littlejohn. King was assigned to Littlejohn by her dispatcher. King and Littlejohn were dispatched to Loredo, Texas. While on the trip to Texas, King alleges that Littlejohn sexually assaulted her at a rest stop. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to King, she has sufficiently alleged facts to support a claim of sexual harassment. The issues presented in the motions before the Court do not require a detailed recitation of this incident.
*4 After the alleged incident occurred, King requested that she be let off at the next hotel. King got off Littlejohn’s truck on September 3, 1997, near Dallas. King spoke with two different Prime employees over the course of the next couple of days. She did not tell them about the alleged incident but requested that she be assigned to a female trainer. When questioned about her preference of a female trainer, King replied that the male trainers “expect you to be with them sexually even if you don’t want to.” On September 6, 1997, King agreed to drive with Gerald Felders, who picked her up in Amarillo, Texas. On September 7, 1997, King sent a message to Prime stating that it was not working out with Felders, and King removed herself from Felders’s truck. King sought permission to go home, and Prime sent King an advance on her paycheck so that King could pay for a bus ticket back home. After King returned home, Kim Haynes (“Haynes”), King’s dispatcher, asked King when she would be returning to work. King replied that she would not return to work with Prime without knowing what would happen to Littlejohn.
On September 8, 1997, Haynes prepared two incident reports describing King’s complaint that Littlejohn had sexually assaulted her. King’s former dispatcher, Stan Auman (“Auman”), who was also Littlejohn’s dispatcher, prepared two incident reports, dated September 9, 1997, and September 11, 1997, describing interviews he had with Littlejohn regarding King’s complaint. On October 1, 1997, King wrote a letter informing Prime that she could not return to work at Prime because of the way she had been treated.
Prime began providing sexual harassment training in 2000 and began formal sexual harassment training in August 2001. All Prime trucks were equipped with the Qual–Comm system, an electronic communication device that operates via satellite and uses global positioning. Assuming the signal is not blocked or interrupted, a driver could immediately communicate with his or her dispatcher. Drivers could also communicate with their dispatchers via telephone and cellular phone if they had access to one. Each truck was also equipped with a panic button, which immediately notified a dispatcher of an emergency; however, it is disputed whether trainees were told about the panic button during their orientation and for what purpose it should be activated.
3

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
Plaintiffs Huffman, Burke and King have filed claims against Prime alleging that they were discriminated against on the basis of their sex in violation of Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) in that Plaintiffs were subjected to sexual harassment by Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn. Additionally, Huffman claims that Prime discriminated against her on the basis of sex in terms of compensation in violation of Title VII, the MHRA and the Equal Pay Act, and Huffman also makes a common law fraud claim against Prime alleging that it misrepresented to her the amount of money that she could make at Prime. Burke and King both claim that Prime constructively discharged them in violation on Title VII and the MHRA. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) claims that Prime violated Title VII by discriminating against Huffman, Burke and King on the basis of their sex.
*5 Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on April 1, 2003, arguing that they are entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of whether Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn were supervisory employees of Prime. Prime filed three Motions for Summary Judgment on April 8, 2003, claiming that it should be granted summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims of sexual harassment because Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn were independent contractors, not employees of Prime, and Prime did not know and should not have known of their alleged conduct. Alternatively, Prime argues that if Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn are considered employees of Prime, it is still entitled to summary judgment with regard to Burke’s and King’s claims of sexual harassment because Turner and Littlejohn are non-supervisory employees, and Prime did not know and could have not known about their alleged conduct. Additionally, Prime argues that it is entitled to summary judgment with regard to Huffman’s claims of sex discrimination and discrimination with respect to her compensation, Burke’s and King’s claims of constructive discharge, and the EEOC’s Title VII claims.
II. STANDARD
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment on a claim only if there is a showing that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” See generally Williams v. City of St. Louis, 783 F.2d 114, 115 (8th Cir.1986). “[W]hile the materiality determination rests on the substantive law, it is the substantive law’s identification of which facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant that governs.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see also Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 664 (8th Cir.1992). In applying this standard, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588–89, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Tyler v. Harper, 744 F.2d 653, 655 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1057, 105 S.Ct. 1767, 84 L.Ed.2d 828 (1985). However, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the ... pleadings, but ... by affidavits or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56], must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Sexual Harassment Claims Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn were supervisory employees of Prime. Defendant Prime has cross-moved for partial summary judgment for the Court to determine as a matter of law that Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn were independent contractors or, alternatively, non-supervisory employees of Prime. The issue is properly decided by the Court because “the ultimate conclusion as to whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor is a question of law.” Berger Transfer & Storage v. Cent. States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (8th Cir.1996) (hereinafter Berger Transfer ).
1. Independent Contractor vs. Employee *6 It should be noted that the agreement between Prime and lease-operators states that the lease-operators are independent contractors. However, “[t]he existence of a contract referring to a party as an independent contractor does not end the inquiry, because an employer ‘may not avoid Title VII by affixing a label to a person that does not capture the substance of the employment relationship.” ’ Schwieger v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480, 483 (8th Cir.2000) (citations
4

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
omitted). The title “independent contractor” found within the lease agreement merits further inquiry; therefore, the Court will analyze the aspects of the employment relationship.
Title VII defines “employee” as “an individual employed by an employer.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)(f), 12111(4). To assist courts in the determination of whether an individual is an independent contractor or employee, the Supreme Court has developed a multi-factor test, which is derived from the common law of agency. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993); Berger Transfer, 85 F.3d at 1378–80. The list of factors found within Darden is non-exhaustive. Berger Transfer, 85 F.3d at 1379; see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 324. “[T]here is not a shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find an answer, but all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive.” Short, 729 F.2d at 571 (citations omitted).
The Darden factors are as follows: (1) the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the business’ purposes are accomplished; (2) the skills required; (3) the source of the instrumentalities and tools; (4) the location of the work; (5) the duration of the relationship between the parties; (6) whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; (7) the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; (8) the method of payment; (9) the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; (10) whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; (11) whether the hiring party is in business; (12) the provision of employee benefits; and (13) the tax treatment of the hired party. Darden, 503 U.S. at 323–24 (quoting Cmty. for Creative Non–Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 740, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989)). The Court will analyze each of the factors in turn.
(a) Hiring Party’s Control Over Manner & Means of Accomplishing Purpose Prime’s purpose was driving loads to customers, and this product was only accomplished through the truck drivers, which includes lease-operators. Lease-operators depended on Prime’s Fleet Managers for load assignments. While lease-operators were permitted to decline a load assignment, they are not permitted to accept load assignments from another company. Additionally, lease-operators were free to choose the route they wanted to take when delivering a load; however, if the route chosen by them was longer than the route in Prime’s computer system, the lease-operators was paid for the shorter route indicated in Prime’s computer system.
(b) Skills Required *7 Lease-operators possessed special skills to drive an eighteen-wheel truck, including the obtaining of a license to do so. Additionally, trainers were required to take the TnT class from Prime before being assigned a trainee.
(c) Source of Instrumentalities and Tools The leases signed by Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn stated that they were responsible for providing their own trucks. However, lease-operators entered into lease agreements with Prime and one of Prime’s related entities, Success Leasing, under which the lease-operators leased tractors from Success Leasing and then leased the trucks back to Prime. Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn bore the costs of insurance on their tractors, maintenance, repairs, fuel, tolls and other expenses related to driving their trucks.
(d) Location of the Work Prime was in the business of delivering loads of product throughout the country. While Prime’s terminal was located in Springfield, Missouri, its work was accomplished throughout the country. Therefore, the fact that lease-operators spent little time at the Springfield terminal is of little significance. Indeed, it is to be expected.
(e) Duration of the Relationship Between the Parties Prime’s relationship with its lease-operators was governed by one-year contracts, which either party could terminate.
5

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
(f) Hiring Party’s Right to Assign Additional Projects to the Hired Party Fleet Managers assigned loads to lease-operators on almost a daily basis. Due to the exclusive nature of the lease agreement between the lease-operators and Prime, the lease-operators depended on these load assignments for their income.
(g) Hired Party’s Discretion Over When and How Long to Work Lease-operators chose to work the days of the week they wanted to work. However, in order to maximize their revenue, the lease-operators had to maximize their miles driven especially since they were forbidden from working for any other trucking company.
(h) Method of Payment Lease-operators were paid a percentage of the revenue collected for the freight transported by the lease-operator with a minimum per mile compensation for miles driven. Each week, the lease-operators would receive settlement statements that reflected payment on a gross per mile basis less the cost of leasing the truck.
(i) Hired Party’s Role in Hiring and Paying Assistants Lease-operators were expected to pay a trainee’s salary and worker’s compensation insurance—a cost that was more than covered by the lease-operator’s extra income (derived from the ability to drive more miles). While the decision to have a trainee was the decision of the lease-operator and the trainer and trainee had to agree to work together, Prime made the final assignment of a trainee to a trainer. Prime also determined the trainee’s salary and reported it on a W–2 form identifying Prime as the employer.
Lease-operators were responsible for loading and unloading their trailers. When they needed assistance with the loading and unloading of the trailers, lease-operators were responsible for paying for such assistance.
(i) Whether the Work is Part of the Regular Business of the Hiring Party *8 Because Prime was a motor freight carrier that provides nationwide transportation services to major shippers, truck driving was part of the regular business of the hiring party.
(k) Whether the Hiring Party is in Business It is undisputed that Prime was in business as a motor freight carrier, providing nationwide transportation to major shippers.
(l) Provision of Employee Benefits Prime made health insurance available to lease-operators but paid no portion of the lease-operator’s health insurance premium.
(m) Tax Treatment of Hired Party Prime reported Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn’s gross income to the Internal Revenue Service on Form 1099s. The lease-operators were responsible for their own withholdings and payment of taxes.
The relationship between lease-operators and Prime is analogous to the employment relationship discussed in the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Short v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund. 729 F.2d 567 (8th Cir.1984). In Short, the owner-operators executed leases for trailers to haul goods for their employers. Id. at 570. The agreement only permitted the owner-operators to work for one trucking company. Id. The owner-operators also had to pay for maintenance of their tractor, withholding taxes, tolls, fuel, and extra assistance with loading and unloading cargo. Id. at 571. The Eighth
6

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
Circuit noted that the relationship between these owner-operators and the lessee companies was unique.
Concededly, these owner-operators operating exclusively for a single company present a hybrid situation between that of a clearly independent contractor and that of a classic employee; and thus the courts, in determining the legal effect of that relationship, must look to the basic purpose and nature of the arrangement and the various factors to weigh in the equation of the freedom of the operator versus the control, guidance and directions reserved or asserted by the lessee company.
Id. at 572.
While the owner-operators in Short had characteristics of both employees and independent contractors, the Eighth Circuit found that the owner-operators were employees. Id. at 573. The Eighth Circuit found that the following factors weighed in favor of a finding of employee status: (1) the exclusivity of the agreement; (2) the number of years the owner-operators had worked for the company; (3) the trailers belonged to the companies; (4) the tractors and trailers displayed the logo of the company; (5) payment was directly from the company rather than from the customers; (6) they operated under licenses and permits held by the company; and (7) they were subject to discharge. Id.
This case contains very similar facts as those emphasized in Short. Here, the lease-operators had exclusive contracts with Prime. They received payment from Prime rather than directly from the customers. The trailers belonged to Prime and displayed the Prime logo. Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn were subject to discharge by Prime at any time.
*9 More recently, the Eighth Circuit held that owner-operators were independent contractors. Berger Transfer, 85 F.3d 1374. In comparison with Berger Transfer, this case involves the additional fact that the lease-operators had exclusive contracts with Prime, whereas the owner-operators in Berger Transfer could work for other trucking companies. This factor is pivotal when considered with the Darden factors discussed above. As the Eighth Circuit noted in Berger Transfer, “[h]ere, the district court found that the owner-operators would sometimes drive for other companies. We believe this to be a key distinction between this case and Short. While Short provides an excellent framework for our analysis, the result must be distinguished on its facts.” 85 F.3d at 1380 (citations omitted).
Taking into account the Darden factors, with emphasis resting on Prime’s control over the lease-operators, the source of the instrumentalities, and exclusivity of the relationship, the Court finds that Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn were employees of Prime and not independent contractors. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted with respect to this issue, and Prime’s Motions for Summary Judgments are denied with respect to this issue.
2. Supervisor vs. Co-worker The determination of whether an individual is a supervisor or a co-worker is an important one because an employer may be held vicariously liable for a supervisor’s conduct. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998). “An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.” Id. at 807 (parenthetical in original). If an individual is considered a co-worker, the employer is only liable for the alleged sexual harassment if it knew or should have known of the alleged harassing conduct and failed to take appropriate remedial action. Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A. Co., 181 F.3d 958, 965 (8th Cir.1999). However, Title VII does not provide a definition of “supervisor.” Additionally, there is no controlling authority in this circuit regarding a definition of “supervisor.” See Weyers v. Lear Operations Corp., 232 F.Supp.2d 977, 991 (W.D.Mo.2002) (currently on appeal to the Eighth Circuit; Appeal No. 02–3732).
Prime argues that Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn are not supervisors under Faragher because they did not have the authority to take tangible employment actions against Huffman, Burke and King. Plaintiffs contend that Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn are supervisors under Faragher. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Faragher establishes that an employee who makes daily assignments and supervises the training of another employee is a supervisor. Plaintiffs misread Faragher. The district court in Faragher held that anyone who supervised day-to-day activities was a supervisor; however, this issue was not before the Supreme Court. 524 U.S. at 808. Since the Supreme Court did not reach the issue, Faragher does not establish that an employee with authority over another’s day-to-day activities is a supervisor.
*10 The heightened liability of an employer for a supervisor’s acts exists because the supervisor’s conduct is made possible by the “abuse of his supervisory authority” due to the supervisor’s ability to alter the working environment. Faragher, 524
7

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
U.S. at 802 (citations omitted). Both the Seventh and Fourth Circuits have helped to define when a person is a supervisor for purposes of this heightened liability. The Seventh Circuit has found that “[a]n individual is not a supervisor unless he possesses the authority to directly affect the terms and conditions of a victim’s employment.” Hall v. Bodine Elec. Co., 276 F.3d 345, 355 (7th Cir.2002); see also Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Ill., Inc., 163 F.3d 1027, 1034 (7th Cir.1998). In Hall, the individual in question possessed the authority to direct the plaintiff’s work, provided input on the plaintiff’s performance evaluations and trained less experienced employees. Id. The Seventh Circuit found that the individual was a co-worker and not a supervisor because he did have the power to affect the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment. The Fourth Circuit has also decided that an individual cannot be considered a supervisor unless the individual has the authority to take tangible employment actions against another. Mikels v. City of Durham, 183 F.3d 323, 333–334 (4th Cir.1999). The Court finds both these cases and their reasoning to be highly persuasive.
Here, the lease-operators had no power to affect the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment; they had no authority to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline their trainees. However, the lease-operators directed the daily work activities of their trainees, which included training them on the operation of a tractor-trailer rig and the completion of necessary documentation. Without more than the minimal authority to direct day-to-day activities, an individual cannot be considered a supervisor for the purposes of Title VII. The undisputed facts establish that Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn were not supervisors of Huffman, Burke and King; rather, they were co-workers assigned the responsibility to train Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied with respect to this issue, and Prime’s Motions for Summary Judgments are granted.
3. Prime’s Knowledge of the Sexual Harassment Because Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn are considered co-workers of Huffman, Burke and King, Prime is only liable for the alleged sexual harassment if it knew or should have known of the alleged harassing conduct and failed to take appropriate remedial action. Scusa, 181 F.3d at 965. Prime has admitted a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether it knew or should have known of the sexual harassment of Huffman. Prime’s Reply to Huffman’s Opp. to Prime’s Mot. for Partial Sum. J. 1 (Doc. # 327). Therefore, the Court denies Prime’s request for summary judgment with regard to Huffman’s sexual harassment claim. Additionally, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to whether Prime knew or should have known about the sexual harassment of Burke and King. Therefore, the Court denies Prime’s Motion for Summary Judgment regard to Burke’s and King’s sexual harassment and with regard to the EEOC’s claim of sexual harassment under Title VII.
B. Burke’s and King’s Constructive Discharge Claims *11 Prime contends that it is entitled to summary judgment with regard to Burke’s and King’s claims of constructive discharge. “A constructive discharge occurs when an employer deliberately renders an employee’s working conditions intolerable with the intent of forcing the employee to leave the employment.” Spears v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr. & Human Res., 210 F.3d 850, 854 (8th Cir.2000) (quoting Knowles v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 142 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir.1998)). The plaintiff must show that a “reasonable person, from an objective viewpoint, would find the working conditions intolerable.” Campos v. City of Blue Springs, 289 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir.2002). Additionally, the Eighth Circuit has stated that an employee must give her employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem. Id. at 550–51 (citation omitted). “A plaintiff must take affirmative steps short of resigning that a reasonable employee would take to make her conditions of employment more tolerable.” Id. If an employee quits without giving her employer a reasonable chance to work out the problem, the employee has not been constructively discharged. Tidwell v. Meyer’s Bakeries, Inc., 93 F.3d 490, 494 (8th Cir.1996) (citations omitted); see also Sowell v. Alumina Ceramics, Inc., 251 F.3d 678, 685 (8th Cir.2001) (citations omitted). “[S]ociety and the policies underlying Title VII will be best served if, wherever possible, unlawful discrimination is attacked within the context of existing employment relationships.” Coffman v. Tracker Marine, L.P., 141 F.3d 1241, 1247 (8th Cir.1998) (internal citations omitted).
Burke’s and King’s claims of constructive discharge are based on their allegations that they were sexually harassed. The Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to this issue of whether Burke and King were constructively discharged. Therefore, Prime’s Motions for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Burke’s and King’s claims of constructive discharge are denied.
8

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
C. Huffman’s Discrimination Claim Regarding Compensation Prime seeks summary judgment with regard to Huffman’s claims that she was paid inequitably by Prime. In Huffman’s Opposition to Prime’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Huffman’s Claim, she admits that there is insufficient evidence to support her claim of sex discrimination with regard to her compensation. Huffman’s Opp. to Prime’s Mot. for Partial S.J. 63 (Doc. # 316). Therefore, the Court grants Prime’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with regard to Huffman’s claim that she was inequitably paid.
D. Punitive Damages Claims Prime’s motion is denied with regard to the punitive damages claims at this time, without prejudice. The matter will, almost certainly, be revisited during the course of trial.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment are granted in part with regard to the determination that Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn and denied in part, and Defendant’s and Plaintiffs’ Requests for Oral Arguments are denied as moot.
*12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Parallel Citations

84 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,578, 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,481

Footnotes

1

Littlejohn was originally a defendant in this matter. However, on August 12, 2002, the Court granted Littlejohn’s Motion to

Dismiss because King’s claims against Littlejohn were time-barred.

2

The title given to Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn is disputed by the parties. Plaintiffs call them “lease-operators,” while Prime

calls them “owner-operators.” Because Lormand, Turner and Littlejohn leased their equipment, rather than owned it, the Court will

call them lease-operators. Furthermore, as will be discussed infra, their titles are irrelevant to the legal analysis.

3

The record does not indicate whether or from whom non-trainee second seat drivers received W–2 forms. This fact is irrelevant.

9

 
 Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
2003 WL 24009006 United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division. Cynthia HUFFMAN, Willa Burke, Virginia King, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiffs,
v. NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a Prime, Inc.; Abel Lormand, and Samuel Turner, Defendants.
No. 01–3144–CV–S–0DS–ECF. | Dec. 17, 2003.
Opinion
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF BURKE’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS BURKE AND KING’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 59(a), AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF EEOC’S RULE 59(a) MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
SMITH, J. *1 Pending are:
(1) Plaintiff Willa Burke’s Motion for a New Trial Against Defendant Samuel Turner (Doc. # 495), (2) Plaintiffs Willa Burke and Virginia King’s Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 59(a) (Doc. # 496), and (3) Plaintiff EEOC’s Rule 59(a) Motion for a New Trial (Doc. # 500). For the following reasons, (1) Plaintiff Willa Burke’s Motion for a New Trial Against Samuel Turner is DENIED, (2) Plaintiffs Willa Burke and Virginia King’s Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 59(a) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and (3) Plaintiff EEOC’s Rule 59(a) Motion for a New Trial is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. BACKGROUND The above-captioned matter was tried to a jury commencing on September 8, 2003, and concluding on September 19, 2003. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Cynthia Huffman (“Huffman”) and the EEOC against New Prime, Inc. (“Prime”) on the claim of sexual harassment, awarding $5,000 in actual damages and $80,000 in punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Huffman and against Defendant Abel Lormand (“Lormand”) on her claim of battery, awarding actual damages in the amount of $1.00 and $10,000 in punitive damages. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Prime with regard to all the claims asserted by Plaintiff Virginia King (“King”) and Plaintiff Willa Burke (“Burke”). On October 3, 2003, Plaintiffs King, Burke and the EEOC filed three Motions for New Trial. Plaintiffs argued that a new trial should be granted for the following nine reasons:
(1) The verdicts for Prime entered on King’s, Burke’s and the EEOC’s sexual harassment claims were against the clear weight of evidence; (2) The verdict for Prime entered on King’s and EEOC’s claim of sexual harassment resulted from juror confusion with
1

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
regard to elements six and seven of instruction No. 39;
(3) The verdict for Prime entered on King’s, Burke’s and the EEOC’s claims of sexual harassment resulted from the Court’s error in denying Plaintiffs’ oral motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment ruling, which held that truck driver trainers were co-workers rather than supervisors;
(4) The verdicts for Prime on King’s, Burke’s and the EEOC’s claims of constructive discharge were against the clear weight of the evidence;
(5) The verdicts for Prime on King’s, Burke’s and the EEOC’s claims of sexual harassment resulted from the Court’s error in giving Instruction Nos. 2, 9, 11 and 14, which instructed the jury to consider each claim separately;
(6) The verdicts for Prime on King’s, Burke’s and the EEOC’s claims for constructive discharge resulted from juror confusion regarding defense counsel’s misstatement in closing arguments that the “knew or should have known” standard applied to the discharge claims;
(7) All the verdicts rendered in favor of Prime resulted from the Court’s error in refusing Plaintiffs’ proffered agency instruction, which was based on Eighth Circuit Model Instruction 8.01;
*2 (8) The Court erred in not admitted evidence of other bad acts of Prime; and (9) The verdict entered against Burke and for Turner on her claims of assault and battery were against the clear weight of the evidence.1
The Court will address these arguments individually.
II. STANDARD
“The district court may order a new trial where it is convinced that the verdict goes against the clear weight of the evidence or where a miscarriage of justice will result. While the district court’s discretion is not boundless, it can rely on its own reading of the evidence in determining whether the verdict goes against the clear weight of the evidence.” Mears v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 91 F.3d 1118, 1123 (8th Cir.1996). “The granting or denial of a new trial motion is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial judge that rests upon factual and credibility determinations.” United States v. Bohn, 508 F.2d 1145, 1150 (8th Cir.1975) (citation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Sexual Harassment Verdicts Against Clear Weight of Evidence First, Plaintiffs King, Burke and the EEOC argue that the verdicts returned on their claims of sexual harassment were against the clear weight of the evidence. The Court must “rely on its own reading of the evidence in determining whether the verdict goes against the clear weight of the evidence.” Mears v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 91 F.3d 1118, 1123 (8th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). To succeed in a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) she belongs to a protected group; (2) she was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) a causal nexus exists between the harassment and her membership in the protected group; and (4) the harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment. Dowd v. United Steelworkers of Am., Local No. 286, 253 F.3d 1093, 1101 (8th Cir.2001) (citing Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 700 (8th Cir.1999)). “The harassment must be so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment and creates an abusive working environment.” Cruzan v. Minneapolis Special Sch. Dist. # 1, 294 F.3d 981, 984 (8th Cir.2002). The Court will address King’s and Burke’s claims of sexual harassment separately.
(1) King’s and the EEOC’s Claims of Sexual Harassment At trial, considerable evidence was presented to establish that King was a member of a protected group, she was subjected to
2

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
unwelcome harassment, the harassment was based on her gender, the harassment was sufficiently severe, and King believed that her work environment was hostile. Neither of the parties contest any of these elements in their briefing of these motions. However, the parties disagree on whether sufficient evidence was presented to establish that Prime knew or should have known of the alleged sexual harassment, and Prime failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment.
Considerable evidence was presented that Prime should have known of the hostile work environment to which King was subjected. On September 3, 1997, the day the alleged sexual assault occurred, King told her dispatcher, Stan Auman (“Auman”), that she wanted to get off Kenneth Littlejohn’s truck because male truck drivers want sexual favors. Shortly after King was taken off of the truck, she called Auman again, telling him that she wanted a female trainer, wanted to come back to the yard, talk to another woman and see a doctor. Auman responded by telling King that Prime truckers were family men. Instead of permitting King to return to Prime, talk to another female, or see a doctor, King was sent out on assignment to California with yet another male trainer. While it was not until five days after the incident of sexual assault occurred that King reported the specific details of the incident, the information provided by King during the five interim days apprized Prime of the hostile work environment in which she labored. The clear weight of the evidence supported both that Prime knew or should have known of the harassment, and Prime, by placing King on another truck with another male trainer and denying her requests to see a doctor or talk to a woman, failed to take prompt and appropriate measures to end the harassment. For these reasons, the Court finds that the jury’s verdict regarding King’s and the EEOC’s claims of sexual harassment was against the clear weight of the evidence. Therefore, King’s and the EEOC’s Motion for a New Trial is granted on this ground.
(2) Burke’s and EEOC’s Claims of Sexual Harassment *3 It is undisputed that Burke is a member of a protected group. Considerable evidence was presented at trial that Burke was subjected to unwelcome harassment, the harassment was based on her gender, the harassment was severe, and Burke believed that her work environment was hostile. The parties dispute whether the clear weight of the evidence supports Prime’s knowledge of the harassment.
When Burke first called Prime to obtain permission to get off of Samuel Turner’s truck, Prime took Burke off the truck and placed her in a hotel in California. The testimony presented at trial conflicted with regard to when Prime knew of the alleged sexual assault. In fact, Burke testified that she was unsure as to when or what she told the dispatcher when she sought permission to get off of the truck. Regardless of when Burke told Prime that she was sexually assaulted or gave them enough information that would impute such knowledge, it makes no difference because Prime took Burke off the truck when she first asked to be taken off of the truck. The evidence established that Prime took measures reasonably calculated to end the alleged harassment. For these reasons, the Court finds that the jury’s verdict with regard to Burke and the EEOC’s claim of sexual harassment was not against the clear weight of the evidence; therefore, Burke’s and the EEOC’s Motion for New Trial is denied.
B. Juror Confusion Regarding Instruction 39 Second, Plaintiffs King and EEOC contend that a new trial should be granted because the jury was confused about the meaning of Instruction 39. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that (1) the jurors did not understand elements six and seven of Instruction 39, and (2) the Court erred in denying Plaintiffs’ request to individually interview the jurors regarding their confusion. The instruction read as follows:
INSTRUCTION NO. 39
Your verdict must be for plaintiffs Virginia King and the EEOC on the claim of sexual harassment against defendant New Prime, Inc., if all the following elements have been proved by the greater weight of the evidence:
First, plaintiff Virginia King was subjected to sexual contact by Kenneth Littlejohn;
Second, such conduct was unwelcome; 3

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
Third, such conduct was based on plaintiff’s gender;
Fourth, such conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position would find plaintiff’s work environment to be hostile;
Fifth, at the time such conduct occurred and as a result of such conduct, plaintiff believed her work environment to be hostile;
Sixth, defendant knew or should have known of the alleged sexual contact by Kenneth Littlejohn; and,
Seventh, defendant failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment.
If any of the above elements has not been proved by the greater weight of the evidence, your verdict must be for defendant and you need not proceed further in considering this claim.
*4 To return your verdict on this sexual harassment claim of plaintiff, use Verdict E.
(Doc. # 487). During the jury’s deliberations, the Court received the following note: “To the Judge, On instruction 39 we are having problems with two of the rules # 6 and 7 due to the fact the situation had already taken place, so therefore [P]rime could not known, or ended, but the other five is a greater weight of the evidence would this still be or allow us to make an accurate verdict .” Doc. # 483, Court Exhibit No. 2. After reading the note, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that the Court individually interview the jurors about the confusion surrounding elements six and seven of Instruction 39. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request and sent a response to the jury’s note stating, “I am unable to offer you any help beyond the instruction I’ve already given you. I would suggest that each of you re-read instruction 39, in its entirety, then resume your discussion.” Doc. # 438, Court Exhibit No. 2. The jury later returned a verdict in favor of Prime on King and the EEOC’s claim of sexual harassment. In support of Plaintiffs’ argument that a new trial should be granted due to juror confusion on Instruction 39, they submit the “Verified Statement of Rebecca S. Stith,” which sets forth a conversation between Plaintiff’s counsel and a juror who called her after the conclusion of the trial about the jury’s confusion surrounding Instruction 39. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the Verified Statement is misplaced. Pursuant to Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a juror cannot provide testimony, affidavits or statements for the purpose of invalidating a verdict.2 Fed.R.Evid. 606(b). The Eighth Circuit has also held that “the testimony or affidavits of jurors are incompetent to show that jury instructions were misinterpreted.” Scogin v. Century Fitness, Inc ., 780 F.2d 1316, 1320 (8th Cir.1985). Therefore, the Court will not consider the Verified Statement.
A new trial can be granted if there is instructional error that prejudices a party. McKay v. WilTel Communication Sys., Inc., 87 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir.1996). “A judgment will be reversed on the basis of instructional error only if the error affected the substantive rights of the parties. The test is whether the instructions given, taken as a whole and viewed in the light of the evidence and applicable law, fairly and adequately submitted the issues in the case to the jury.” Gasper v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 270 F.3d 1196, 1200 (8th Cir.2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Instruction 39 mirrors the Eighth Circuit Manual of Model Jury Instruction on sexual harassment by a non-supervisor with no tangible employment action (No. 5.43). Additionally, elements six and seven of Instruction 39 are almost identical to the sixth element of the jury instruction found on page 33 of Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instructions, which states, “Defendant New Prime, Inc. knew or should have known of the inappropriate comments or conduct of a sexual nature committed by Kenneth Littlejohn or Gerald Felders, and failed to take appropriate preventative or corrective measures.” Doc. # 435.
*5 Instruction 39 fairly, accurately and adequately instructed the jury on King and the EEOC’s claim of sexual harassment. Also, the Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ request to individually interview the jurors about elements six and seven was not error. Therefore, Instruction 39 did not prejudice any of the parties. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Trial is denied with regard to the argument of juror confusion.
C. Denial of Oral Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Summary Judgment Ruling Third, Plaintiffs King, Burke and EEOC argue that a new trial should be granted because the verdict for Prime entered on their claims of sexual harassment resulted from the Court’s error in denying Plaintiff’s oral motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment ruling, which held that truck driver trainers were co-workers rather than supervisors. The evidence presented at trial was consistent with the evidence that accompanied the parties’ summary judgment motions. The Court was unpersuaded then and is unpersuaded now that its summary judgment ruling was in error. Plaintiffs’ Motion for
4

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
New Trial on these grounds is denied.
D. Constructive Discharge Verdicts Against Clear Weight of Evidence Fourth, Plaintiffs King, Burke and the EEOC claim that a new trial should be granted because the verdicts for Prime on their claims of constructive discharge were against the clear weight of the evidence. An employee is constructively discharged when the employer deliberately renders the employee’s working conditions intolerable and, thus, forces her to quit her job. See Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (8th Cir.2002); Jackson v. Ark. Dep’t of Educ., 272 F.3d 1020, 1026 (8th Cir.2002). Plaintiff must show that a “reasonable person, from an objective viewpoint, would find the working conditions intolerable.” Campos v. City of Blue Springs, 289 F.3d 546, 550 (8th Cir.2002). Additionally, the employee must give her employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem. Id. at 550–51 (citation omitted). However, if an employee quits without giving her employer a reasonable chance to work out the problem, the employee has not been constructively discharged. Tidwell v. Meyer’s Bakeries, Inc., 93 F.3d 490, 494 (8th Cir.1996) (citations omitted); see also Sowell v. Alumina Ceramics, Inc., 251 F.3d 678, 685 (8th Cir.2001) (citations omitted). The Court will analyze Burke’s and King’s constructive discharge claims individually.
(1) King’s and the EEOC’s Claims of Constructive Discharge At trial, evidence was presented that King planned to quit working for Prime once she got off of Gerald Felder’s truck. Immediately before getting off of the truck, King sent a QualComm message to Prime stating that she wanted to go home and she wanted her lawyer and Prime’s lawyer to battle it out in court. Prime also agreed to place King with another trainer so that she could complete her training. King was called on a few occasions by one of Prime’s dispatchers asking King when she planed on returning; however, King never agreed to come back. It was reasonable for the jury to conclude, in light of the evidence, that King did not intend to continue working for Prime. Therefore, the Court concludes that the verdict on King’s and the EEOC’s claims of constructive discharge was not against the weight of the evidence, and the Motion for New Trial is denied in this respect.
(2) Burke’s and the EEOC’s Claims of Constructive Discharge *6 Evidence was presented at trial that after Burke was released to work by her medical providers, she did not want to return to work at Prime. Prime called Burke on several occasions after she was removed from Turner’s truck to facilitate Burke’s return to Prime. Prime also agreed to place her with a different trainer so that she could complete her training. In light of this evidence, the jury reasonably concluded that Burke was not constructively discharged. Therefore, the Court finds that the jury’s verdict on Burke’s and the EEOC’s claims of constructive discharge was not against the weight of the evidence; Plaintiffs’ motion is denied on this ground.
E. Limiting Instruction Nos. 2, 9, 11 and 14 Fifth, Plaintiffs King, Burke and the EEOC argue that the verdicts for Prime on their claims of sexual harassment resulted from the Court’s error in giving Instructions 2, 9, 11 and 14. The contested instructions were actually one instruction given on four separate occasions. The instruction read as follows:
INSTRUCTION NO. 2
This case involves separate, distinct claims by four plaintiffs, the EEOC, Cynthia Huffman, Willa Burke and Virginia King, against three defendants, New Prime, Inc., Abel Lormand and Samuel Turner. No one claim is dependent on any other claim. When evidence is introduced that pertains to only one of the plaintiffs’ claims, you are to consider that evidence only as to that particular plaintiff’s claim against that particular defendant, and you should consider that evidence only as to that particular claim. (Doc. # 487). Plaintiffs’ motion may be granted if the instructional error prejudices a party. McKay, 87 F.3d at 975. The instruction, viewed in light of the evidence and applicable law, must fairly and accurately instruct the jury as to the issue.
5

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
Gasper, 270 F.3d at 1200. When other complaints of sexual harassment have not occurred within the same time frame or under the same circumstances as those at issue in the trial, that evidence must be excluded as irrelevant under Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Williams v. City of Kansas City. Mo., 223 F.3d 749, 755 (8th Cir.2000). The events surrounding King’s, Burke’s and Huffman’s claims occurred in 1997, 1999 and 2000, respectively. In addition, the complaints of sexual harassment were made against at least three different individuals. Because some complaints of sexual harassment did not occur in the same time frame or at the hands of the same people, those complaints cannot be considered with regard to other claims of sexual harassment. Therefore, the limiting instruction given by the Court fairly and accurately instructed the jury in light of the evidence of this case and the applicable law. Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial is denied with regard to the limiting instruction.
F. Juror Confusion Regarding Constructive Discharge Standard Sixth, Plaintiffs King, Burke and the EEOC contend that a new trial should be granted because the verdicts for Prime on their claims for constructive discharge resulted from juror confusion regarding defense counsel’s misstatement in closing arguments that the “knew or should have known” standard applied to the discharge claims. Arguments of counsel justify a new trial if they are “plainly unwarranted and clearly injurious.” Vanskike v. Union Pac. R.R., 725 F.2d 1146, 1149 (8th Cir.1984).
*7 In Prime’s closing argument, counsel discussed Instruction 45, which stated that the jury could not return a verdict for Plaintiffs just because it disagreed with Prime’s actions or found them to be unreasonable or harsh. While discussing Instruction 45, counsel argued the “knew or should have known” standard in reference to Plaintiffs’ claims of sexual harassment. Plaintiffs objected to the reference because Instruction 45 referred the jury to Instruction 44, which was the verdict director for Huffman’s claim of constructive discharge and did not contain the “knew or should have known” standard. The Court sustained Plaintiffs’ objection.
Instruction 45 was identical to Instructions 21, 40, 51 and 56. While it would have been better for Prime’s counsel to refer to Instructions 21, 40 or 51, which followed the verdict directors for Plaintiffs’ claims of sexual harassment, defense counsel’s error was cured by the Court sustaining Plaintiff’s objection. Therefore, defense counsel’s argument was not clearly injurious. Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial is denied on this ground.
G. Denial of Plaintiff’s Proffered Agency Instruction Seventh, Plaintiffs King, Burke and the EEOC argue a new trial should be granted because all the verdicts (specifically, Verdicts E, F, G and H) rendered in favor of Prime resulted from the Court’s error in refusing Plaintiffs’ proffered corporation instruction, which was based on Eighth Circuit Model Instruction 8.01.
PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION
A corporation acts only through its agents or employees and any agent or employee of a corporation may bind the corporation by acts and statements made while acting within the scope of the authority delegated to the agent by the corporation, or within the scope of his duties as an employee of the corporation. (Doc. # 435). The Court denied Plaintiff’s proposed instruction. Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial can be granted if the instructional error prejudices a party. McKay, 87 F.3d at 975. The instruction, viewed in light of the evidence and applicable law, must fairly and accurately instruct the jury as to the issue. Gasper, 270 F.3d at 1200. The instruction proffered by Plaintiffs instructed a jury with respect to when a principal is strictly liable for the acts of an agent, which was not an issue in this case. In this case, Prime was not strictly liable for its employees’ actions, but it was liable for co-worker harassment only if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take measures reasonably calculated to end the harassment. Based on the facts of this case and the applicable law, Plaintiffs’ proposed instruction did not fairly and accurately state the law. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial on the basis of the Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ proposed agency instruction is denied.
6

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
H. Admissibility of Other Bad Acts of Prime Eighth, Plaintiffs King and Burke argue that a new trial should be granted because the Court erred in not admitting evidence of other bad acts of Prime. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that evidence of Prime’s alleged acts of doctoring log book, falsifying HAZMAT tests, and other complaints of sexual harassment and sex discrimination against other female employees should have been admitted. Evidentiary errors justify a new trial if there was, in fact, an error and that error affected a party’s substantial rights. See Anderson v. Genuine Parts Co., 128 F.3d 1267, 1270 (8th Cir.1997). The Court was unpersuaded at trial and remains unpersuaded that these alleged bad acts are relevant to the claims in this case. And, as also stated at trial, if the evidence was relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice and confusion. This evidence was properly excluded pursuant to Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial is denied on these grounds.
I. Assault and Battery Verdicts Against Clear Weight of Evidence *8 Finally, Plaintiff Burke argues that a new trial should be granted because the verdicts returned in favor of Turner on Burke’s claims of assault and battery were against the clear weight of the evidence. As stated previously, the Court must “rely on its own reading of the evidence in determining whether the verdict goes against the clear weight of the evidence.” Mears, 91 F.3d at 1123.
The undisputed evidence presented at trial was that Burke neither objected to nor resisted Turner’s sexual advances. As a result, it was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that Burke may have consented to Turner’s advances and, thus, was not assaulted or battered. Therefore, the jury’s verdict in favor of Turner on Burke’s claims of assault and battery were not against the clear weight of the evidence. Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial is denied on this ground.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
(1) Plaintiff Willa Burke’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED,
(2) Plaintiffs Willa Burke and Virginia King’s Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 59(a) is GRANTED on King’s claim of sexual harassment and otherwise DENIED, and
(3) Plaintiff EEOC’s Rule 59(a) Motion for a New Trial is GRANTED on Plaintiffs King’s and EEOC’s claims of sexual harassment and otherwise DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Parallel Citations

85 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,768

Footnotes

1

In Plaintiff Burke’s Motion for New Trial Against Samuel Turner (Doc. # 495), Burke sets forth a second basis for a new trial,

which appears to be more indicative of a factual argument that the jury may or may not have considered.

2

Rule 606(b) does provide for a limited exception when a juror is permitted to provide testimony “on the question whether

extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly

brought to bear upon any juror.” Fed.R.Evid. 606(b). This exception does not apply in this case.

7

 
 Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
2003 WL 24009005 United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division. Cynthia HUFFMAN, Willa Burke, Virginia King, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiffs,
v. NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a Prime, Inc.; Abel Lormand, and Samuel Turner, Defendants.
No. 01–3144–CV–S–ODS–ECF. | Dec. 23, 2003.
Opinion
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER
SMITH, J. *1 Pending are
(1) Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. # 498), (2) Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman’s Request for Injunctive Relief (Doc. # 543), and (3) Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Hearing on EEOC’s Motion for Permanent Injunction and Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Trial (Doc. # 555). For the following reasons, (1) Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Injunctive Relief is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, (2) Plaintiff Huffman’s Request for Injunctive Relief is DENIED, and (3) Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Hearings is DENIED AS MOOT.
I. BACKGROUND The above-captioned matter was tried to a jury commencing on September 8, 2003, and concluding on September 19, 2003. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Cynthia Huffman (“Huffman”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against New Prime, Inc. (“Prime”) on the claim of sexual harassment, awarding $5,000 in actual damages and $80,000 in punitive damages. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Prime with regard to all the claims asserted by Plaintiff Virginia King (“King”) and Plaintiff Willa Burke (“Burke”) and Huffman’s claim of constructive discharge. On October 3, 2003, the EEOC filed its Motion for Permanent Injunction. The EEOC requested the following injunctive relief:
(1) That Prime provide certain affirmative relief for Cynthia Huffman; (2) That Prime refuse to hire Abel Lormand or any entity or person with whom he is associated as an employee or in any other capacity; (3) That Prime post notices informing employees of their right to be free of sexual harassment; (4) That Prime provide comprehensive full-day sexual harassment training by an outside contractor to all current and
1

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
future employees, including, but not limited to, truck drivers; and (5) That Prime report complaints of sexual harassment to the EEOC within thirty (30) days of receipt of such complaint for a period of five (5) years.
On November 10, 2003, Huffman filed her Request for Injunctive Relief. Huffman asked for the following injunctive relief: (1) That Prime have an annual evaluation, training and review of its policies, enforcement and training with regard to all forms of discrimination in the work place for all members of Prime’s management; (2) That a committee be selected by the Plaintiff and her counsel for the purposes of determining Prime’s compliance with this Order; (3) That another training program regarding discrimination be instituted for all other employees of Prime; (4) That Prime publish monthly report called “Working Conditions at Prime” that highlights any and all complaints about the working conditions at Prime; (5) That Prime publish an annual report regarding the working conditions of Prime; (6) That Prime prominently display the judgment from this case along with a summary of the case in a public location as determined by Plaintiff and her counsel; and (7) That Prime establish one week every year as “Women’s Rights Awareness Week” and hold programs related thereto.
*2 The Court will first address the EEOC’s requests, followed by a discussion Huffman’s requests.
II. STANDARD When a plaintiff prevails under Title VII, “the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate....” 42 U.S .C. § 2000e–5(g)(1). “Title VII has vested broad equitable powers in the federal courts to fashion a decree which will, so far as possible, eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimination in the future.” Gilbert v. City of Little Rock, 799 F.2d 1210, 1215 (8th Cir.1986). Injunctive relief should not be granted unless the record establishes a real threat of a future violation of law. Webb v. Mo. Pacific R.R. Co., 98 F.3d 1067–70 (8th Cir.1996) (citing United States v. Ore. St. Med. Soc’y, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952)).
III. DISCUSSION Considerable evidence was presented at trial indicating a real threat of future violation of the law. First, Prime failed to effectively communicate its sexual harassment policy to all of its employees and its driver-trainers in particular. Second, Prime conducted little or no training for its truck drivers regarding the company’s policy against sexual harassment. For these reasons, the Court concludes that injunctive relief must be granted.
A. The EEOC’s Motion for Injunctive Relief “The EEOC represents the public interest when litigating claims, and, through injunctive relief, seeks to protect not only the rights of the individual claimant, but those of similarly situated employees by deterring the employer from future discrimination.” EEOC v. Massey Yardley Chrysler Plymouth, 117 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir.1997).
(1) Affirmative Relief for Cynthia Huffman Specifically, the EEOC requests that Prime be required to provide Huffman with a neutral reference letter and purge her
2

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
employment records of all mention of this lawsuit or the EEOC charge. The EEOC argues that if this relief is granted, Huffman will be placed in the position she would have been had she not been sexually harassed. The Court agrees and orders Prime to expunge Huffman’s employment records of all references to Huffman’s Charge of Discrimination or the above-captioned matter. Prime is also ordered to provide Huffman with a neutral letter of recommendation.
(2) Prohibit Rehiring of Abel Lormand The EEOC requests that the Court prohibit Prime from rehiring Abel Lormand or any entity or person with whom he is associated as an employee or in any other capacity. Since the incident involving Huffman, Lormand retired from Prime and truck driving as a result of physical disabilities. It is highly unlikely that he will again be employed as a driver for Prime or anyone else. Accordinglly, the Court does not believe that this is an appropriate remedy in this case, and the EEOC has failed to present any authority otherwise. This request is denied.
(3) Posting of Sexual Harassment Policy *3 Third, the EEOC requests that the Court require Prime to post a notice informing employees of their right to be free of sexual harassment.1 The Court agrees that this is an appropriate remedy. Therefore, Prime is directed to post notices describing the federal laws prohibiting sexual harassment. These notices shall be prominently displayed and posted in conspicuous places, including training rooms, meeting rooms, lounges and company bulletin boards. These notices shall be posted within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
(4) Sexual Harassment Training Fourth, the EEOC requests that the Court require Prime to provide comprehensive full-day sexual harassment training by an outside contractor to all current and future employees, including, but not limited to, truck drivers. The Court finds that the relief requested by Plaintiff is broader than necessary based on the evidence presented at trial. The evidence established that Prime has been training the employees located at its headquarters in Springfield, but it has not been effectively training its trainer-drivers. In this respect, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request, and orders Prime to revamp its orientation program for all new employees to include two hours of training on sexual harassment. The two hours of sexual harassment training may be provided by an outside contractor or a qualified trainer employed by Prime. In addition, Prime is ordered to also give two hours of sexual harassment training to all employees who have received less than two hours of sexual harassment in the last twelve months. This training shall occur within twelve months of this Order.
This two-hour sexual harassment training shall remain in place for three years. After the first year, Prime shall certify to the EEOC that all of its new and current employees have received sexual harassment training within the preceding twelve months. At the end of the second and third years, Prime shall certify to the EEOC that all of its new employees have received sexual harassment training within the preceding twelve months.
The word “employees” includes salaried drivers, if any, and drivers who have entered into owner/operator or independent contractor agreements with Prime.
(5) Reporting of Sexual Harassment Complaints Finally, the EEOC requests that this Court require Prime to report all complaints of sexual harassment to the EEOC within thirty (30) days of receipt of such complaint for a period of five (5) years. The Eighth Circuit has previously considered this type of injunctive relief and, in a similar case, denied the request. EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543 (8th Cir.1998). In HBE Corp., the Eighth Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ request because the plaintiffs’ immediate harm was remedied by the expungement of their employment records and a letter of recommendation. Id. at 558. The Eighth Circuit also concluded that such a procedure “would only address speculative future harm,” and, therefore, was broader than necessary. Id. at 559.
*4 Here, Huffman’s immediate harm will be remedied by Prime’s neutral recommendation letter and the expungement of all references to the lawsuit and Charge of Discrimination. The relief sought by the EEOC would address only speculative future harm and, therefore, is broader than necessary. This request is denied.
3

Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
B. Huffman’s Request for Injunctive Relief Huffman also requests several types of injunctive relief. However, Huffman is no longer employed at Prime and did not seek reinstatement in the above-captioned matter. A court cannot grant injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff in a Title VII case if the Plaintiff did not seek reinstatement or did not show a way in which she would benefit personally from the relief requested. Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1136 (11th Cir.1984); see also Backus v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 671 F.2d 1100, 1102–03 (8th Cir.1982). “Although injunctive relief may benefit non-parties as well as parties to a Title VII action, the class benefitted by the injunction must include the plaintiff. Otherwise, the injunctive relief is unnecessary to the ‘just disposition of the action.” ’ Id. (citations omitted). Because Huffman did not seek reinstatement and has not shown this Court how she would personally benefit from the injunctive relief sought, Huffman’s request must be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
(1) Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Injunctive Relief is GRANTED with respect to the EEOC’s requests for affirmative relief for Huffman, the posting of notices and sexual harassment training, but otherwise DENIED;
(2) Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman’s Request for Injunctive Relief is DENIED; and (3) Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Hearing on EEOC’s Motion for Permanent Injunction and Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Trial is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Parallel Citations

85 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,769

Footnotes

1

In Plaintiff EEOC’s Reply to Prime’s Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, the EEOC refers

to posting a notice of this case’s judgment. However, this type of relief was not requested in the EEOC’s initial motion and will not

be considered by the Court.

4

 
 Huffman v. New Prime, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
2004 WL 1401967 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division. Cynthia HUFFMAN, Willa Burke, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiffs,
v. NEW PRIME, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS. | June 22, 2004. Attorneys and Law Firms Christopher Michael Schappe, Ken Jacobs & Associates, Columbia, MO, Dustin N. Thomas, F. Douglas Montague, III, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, Hattiesburg, MO, Roger G. Brown, Roger G Brown & Associates, Jefferson City, MO, Andrea Taylor, Kansas City, KS, Barbara A. Seely, Rebecca S. Stith, Robert G. Johnson, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs. R. Lawrence Ward, James C. Sullivan, Monica Marie Fanning, Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., Kansas City, MO, JoAnne Spears Jackson, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., Kendall Ray McPhail, Reynolds, Gold & Grosser, PC, Springfield, MO, for Defendants. Opinion
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF JULY 24, 2003 SMITH, J. *1 The Court is informed that the parties have reached settlement of Plaintiffs’ several claims. The settlement contemplates that the Court vacate its Order of July 24, 2003 (Doc. # 354). In accordance with the agreement and without objection from Plaintiffs, the Court’s Order of July 24, 2003, is hereby vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED.
1

 
 Huffman v. New Prime, Inc.
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division December 12, 2003, Decided
Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-ODS-ECF

Reporter: 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25010; 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41,578

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN, WILLA BURKE, VIRGINIA

KING, and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY For Willa Burke, INTERVENOR: F Douglas Montague, III,

COMMISSION, Plaintiffs, vs. NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a Roger G Brown & Associates, Hattiesburg, MO USA.

PRIME, INC.; ABEL LORMAND, and SAMUEL TURNER,

Defendants.

For Willa Burke, Virginia King, INTERVENORS: Roger G

Brown, Roger G Brown & Associates, Jefferson City, MO

Subsequent History: Motion for new trial granted by, in part, USA.

Motion for new trial denied by, in part Huffman v. New

Prime, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26204 (W.D. Mo., Dec. For Virginia King, INTERVENOR: F Douglas Montague, III,

17, 2003)

Montague, Pittman & Varnado, Hattiesburg, MO USA.

Disposition: [*1] Defendant Prime's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for Reduction of Punitive Damages Award denied.
Counsel: For Cynthia Huffman, PLAINTIFF: Christopher Michael Schappe, Roger G Brown, Roger G Brown & Associates, Jefferson City, MO USA.
For Cynthia Huffman, PLAINTIFF: Dustin N Thomas, F Douglas Montague, III, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, Hattiesburg, MO USA.
For Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, PLAINTIFF: Andrea Taylor, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Kansas City, KS USA.
For Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, PLAINTIFF: Barbara A Seely, Rebecca S Stith, Robert G Johnson, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, St Louis, MO USA.
For New Prime, Inc, DEFENDANT: R Lawrence Ward, James C Sullivan, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC-Kcmo, Monica Marie Fanning, Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Kansas City, MO USA.
For New Prime, Inc, DEFENDANT: Joanne Spears Jackson, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC -SPFD, Springfield, MO USA.
For Abel Joseph Lormand, Samuel Turner, DEFENDANTS: Kendall [*2] Ray McPhail, Reynolds, Gold & Grosser, PC, Springfield, MO USA.
For Willa Burke, INTERVENOR: Christopher Michael Schappe, Roger G Brown & Associates, Jefferson City, MO USA.

Judges: ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Opinion by: ORTRIE D. SMITH
Opinion
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT PRIME'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES ON PLAINTIFF HUFFMAN'S CLAIMS AND THE CLAIMS OF THE EEOC RELATING TO HUFFMAN OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR REDUCTION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD
Pending is Defendant Prime's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding the Submission of Punitive Damages on Plaintiff Huffman's Claims and the Claims of the EEOC Relating to Huffman or, in the Alternative, for Reduction of Punitive Damages Award (Doc. # 503). For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
I. [*3] BACKGROUND
The above-captioned matter was tried to a jury beginning September 8, 2003, and concluding September 19, 2003. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Cynthia Huffman ("Huffman") and the EEOC against New Prime, Inc. ("Prime") on the claim of sexual harassment, awarding $ 5,000 in actual damages and $ 80,000 in punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Huffman and against Defendant Abel Lormand ("Lormand") on her claim of battery, awarding actual damages in the amount of $ 1.00 and $ 10,000 in punitive damages. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Prime with regard to all the claims asserted by Plaintiff Virginia King ("King") and Plaintiff Willa Burke ("Burke"). On October

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25010, *3

Page 2 of 3

3, 2003, Prime filed its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a EEOC, there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict

Matter of Law with regard to the submission of punitive holding Prime liable for punitive damages on Huffman and

damages on Huffman's claims or, in the alternative, a Motion the EEOC's claim of sexual harassment. Based on these

to Reduce the Punitive Damages Award.

reasons and those articulated by the Court at trial, Prime's

II. STANDARD

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is denied.

B. Reduction of Punitive Damages Award When considering a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,

the Court is not permitted to consider the credibility of Alternatively, Prime contends that Huffman's punitive

witnesses and must consider the evidence in the light most damages award regarding her sexual harassment claim should

favorable to the prevailing party. Gardner v. Buerger, 82 F.3d be reduced. 1 The Supreme Court has stated that "the most

248, 251 (8th Cir. 1996). [*4] The motion can be granted important indicium of the reasonableness of punitive damages

only if the evidence "point[s] unswervingly to only one is the degree of reprehensibility of the defense's conduct."

reasonable conclusion." Id.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408,

III. DISCUSSION

123 S. Ct. 1513, 1521, 155 L. Ed. 2d 585 (2003) [*6] (emphasis added). When determining the

A. Submission of Punitive Damages to Jury

reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the Supreme Court has directed courts to consider whether (1) the harm

Prime first argues that it should be granted judgment as a matter of law because the Court erred in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury with regard to Huffman and the EEOC's claim of sexual harassment. "Federal law imposes a formidable burden on plaintiffs who seek punitive damages in a hostile work environment action premised under Title VII. An employee seeking punitive damages from an employer as a result of sexual harassment perpetrated by a fellow employee must show that the employer acted with actual malice or deliberate indifference to her federally protected right." Henderson v. Simmons Foods, Inc., 217 F.3d 612, 618 (8th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). "The terms 'malice' or 'reckless indifference' pertain to the employer's knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination." Id. (quoting Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526, 144 L. Ed. 2d 494,

caused was physical as opposed to economical; (2) the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; (3) the target of the conduct was financially vulnerable; (4) the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and (5) the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, deceit or mere accident. Id. (citing BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 576-77, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809, 116 S. Ct. 1589 (1996)). In this case, Prime's conduct was reprehensible. Prime repeatedly failed to act when Huffman complained to her employer for two weeks that driver-trainer Abel Lormand physically and verbally assaulted her. For example, after Huffman reported to Prime that Lormand grabbed her chest, Prime did not grant Huffman's request to leave the truck until two weeks after she reported the grabbing incident and other incidents.

119 S. Ct. 2118 (1999)).

[*7] In addition to consider the degree of reprehensibility of

In this [*5] case, Huffman and the EEOC met the standard needed to justify the submission of a punitive damages instruction and the jury's award of punitive damages. Prime did not act with malice; however, evidence presented at trial suggested that Prime's actions in not responding to Huffman's numerous complaints of physical and verbal assault amounted to deliberate indifference of Huffman's federally protected rights. Applying the proper standard of review, which requires the Court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Huffman and the

the defendant's conduct, the Court must also consider the ratio between the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff and the amount of the punitive damages award. Walsh v. Nat'l Computer Sys., Inc., 332 F.3d 1150, 1162 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Beard v. Flying J, Inc., 266 F.3d 792, 804 (8th Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has specifically declined "to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed." Campbell, 123 S. Ct. at 1524 (noting that single-multipliers are more likely to comport with due process than awards of 500 to 1 or 145

1 In Prime's motion, it interchangeably uses the terms "reduction" and "remittitur." "A remittitur is a substitution of the court's judgment for that of the jury regarding the appropriate award of damages. The court orders a remittitur when it believes the jury's award is unreasonable on the facts." Ross v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 293 F.3d 1041, 1049-50 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johansen v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 1999)). A reduction "is a determination that the law does not permit the award. Unlike a remittitur, which is discretionary with the court … a court has a mandatory duty to correct an unconstitutionally excessive verdict so that it conforms to the requirements of the due process clause. Id. Because the Court has a mandatory duty to review the punitive damages award under the Due Process Clause, it will treat Prime's motion as a Motion for Reduction of the Punitive Damages Award.

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25010, *7

Page 3 of 3

to 1). In this case, the jury awarded $ 5,000 in actual damages and $ 80,000 in punitive damages. The ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages is 16 to 1. Numerically, the award of punitive damages is not grossly excessive. Additionally, in relationship to the hostile work environment that Huffman experience, the punitive damages award is not grossly excessive. Prime's failure to take action on any of Huffman's numerous complaints of harassment by Lormand over a two-week period is egregious and the type of conduct that punitive damages [*8] should deter. Therefore, the Court concludes that the amount of punitive damages is both reasonable and proportionate to harm suffered by Plaintiff and the compensatory damages recovered by her; therefore, Prime's Motion to Reduce the Award of Punitive Damages is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Prime's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding the Submission of Punitive Damages on Plaintiff Huffman's Claims and the Claims of the EEOC Relating to Huffman or, in the Alternative, for Reduction of Punitive Damages Award is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 12, 2003
/s/
ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE

IV. CONCLUSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

CONSOL, PHV, PROTO, TERMED
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Springfield)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:01-cv-03144-ODS

Huffman et al v. New Prime, Inc. et al Assigned to: District Judge Ortrie D. Smith Demand: $75,000 Case in other court: 04-01339
04-01686 04-01817 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
Plaintiff
Cynthia Huffman

Date Filed: 03/28/2001 Date Terminated: 09/19/2003 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel & Slander Jurisdiction: Diversity
represented by Christopher Michael Schappe 19 E. Walnut Street Ste. B Columbia, MO 65201 (573) 886-8964 Email: schappus@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dustin N. Thomas Montague, Pittman & Varnado P. O. Drawer 1975 Hattiesburg, MO 39403-1975 (601)544-1234 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

F. Douglas Montague, III Montague, Pittman & Varnado P. O. Drawer 1975 Hattiesburg, MO 39403-1975 (601) 544-1234 Fax: (601) 544-1280 Email: tonnbyrd@mpvlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roger G Brown Roger G Brown & Associates 216 E. McCarty Street Jefferson City, MO 65101-2960 (573) 634-8501 Fax: (573) 634-7679 Email: jclaw@rogerbrownlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision
2 of 54

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...
represented by Andrea Taylor Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 400 State Avenue Suite 905 Kansas City, KS 66101 (913)551-5845 Fax: 913-551-6957 Email: andrea.taylor@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barbara A. Seely Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Robert Young Federal Building 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 (314)539-7916 Fax: (314)539-7895 Email: Barbara.Seely@EEOC.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca S. Stith Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Robert Young Federal Building 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 (314)539-7917 Fax: (314)539-7895 Email: rebecca.stith@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert G. Johnson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 (314)539-7910 Fax: (314)539-7895 Email: robert.johnson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report
V. Defendant New Prime, Inc.
3 of 54

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...
represented by Arthur E Curtis Greene & Curtis, L.L.P. 1949 E. Sunshine, Ste. 2-300 Springfield, MO 65804-1605 417-883-7678 TERMINATED: 05/30/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ben K. Upp Turner, Reid, Duncan, Loomer & Patton, P.C. 1355 E. Bradford Pkwy. Ste. A Springfield, MO 65804 (417) 883-2102 Email: bupp@trdlp.com TERMINATED: 05/30/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY
Heather R. Gill Lathrop & Gage, LC-KCMO 2800 2345 Grand Avenue Suite 2800 Kansas City, MO 64108-2684 (816)292-2000 Fax: (816)292-2001 Email: hgill@lathropgage.com TERMINATED: 12/13/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. Lawrence Ward Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC-KCMO 120 West 12th Street Twelve Wyandotte Plaza Kansas City, MO 64105-1929 (816) 421-3355 Fax: (816)374-0509 Email: lward@stklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Sullivan Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC-KCMO 120 West 12th Street
6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report
Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand
4 of 54

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...
Twelve Wyandotte Plaza Kansas City, MO 64105-1929 (816) 421-3355 Fax: (816) 374-0509 Email: jsullivan@stklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JoAnne Spears Jackson Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. - SPFD 901 St. Louis Suite 1200 Springfield, MO 65806 (417) 869-3353 Fax: (417) 869-9943 Email: jjackson@stklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Marie Fanning Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. 120 W. 12th Street Suite 1700 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816)421-3355 Fax: (816)374-0509 Email: mfanning@stklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kendall Ray McPhail Reynolds, Gold & Grosser, PC 1240 East Independence Suite 200 Springfield, MO 65804-4284 (417) 864-4700 Fax: (417)864-4774 Email: kmcphail@myexcel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina G. Fowler Lathrop & Gage L.C. 1845 S. National P. O. Box 4288 Springfield, MO 65808-4288 (417) 886-2000 Fax: (4170 886-9126 Email: tfowler@lathropgage.com TERMINATED: 11/25/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn TERMINATED: 08/12/2002 Defendant Samuel Turner
Intervenor Willa Burke
Intervenor Virginia King

represented by Tina G. Fowler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kendall Ray McPhail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina G. Fowler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael Schappe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
F. Douglas Montague, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roger G Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by F. Douglas Montague, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roger G Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/29/2001
03/29/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Abel Joseph Lormand, New Prime, Inc.. filed by Roger G Brown of Roger G Brown & Associates on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. Receipt #188031. (Attachments: # 1)(Brown, Roger) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/29/2001 (Price, Jackie). (Entered: 03/29/2001)
2 MOTION AND ORDER for Pro Hac Vice admission of F Douglas Montegue and Dustin N Thomas.(Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 03/30/2001)

5 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

04/05/2001 05/23/2001 05/23/2001 05/23/2001
05/23/2001 05/23/2001 05/24/2001 06/04/2001
07/23/2001
08/03/2001 08/14/2001 08/14/2001 08/17/2001 08/17/2001

3 WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS by New Prime, Inc., d/b/a Prime, Inc. filed by Roger G Brown of Roger G Brown & Associates on behalf of Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 04/05/2001)
4 STATEMENT OF CORPORATE INTEREST /CERTIFICATE filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
5 MOTION to change/transfer venue DIVISION filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 6/4/2001. (Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
6 MOTION for order TO DISMISS COUNTS I, II, IV, V, AND VI OF DEFENDANT NEW PRIME, INC. filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 6/4/2001. (Attachments: # 1)(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
7 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OF NEW PRIME, INC. filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (related doc 6) (Jackson, JoAnne) . (Entered: 05/23/2001)
8 ANSWER to complaint (Related Doc # 1) OF DEFENDANT NEW PRIME, INC. filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
9 RULE 16 NOTICE issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Proposed scheduling order due by 8/15/2001, rule 26 conference due by 8/1/2001.(Hopkins, Karen) (Entered: 05/24/2001)
10 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION To The Motion To Dismiss Counts I, II, IV, V, And VI of Defendant New Prime, Inc. filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 6/18/2001. (Related document(s)6) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 06/04/2001)
11 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Defendant's motion to transfer case; the case is transferred from the Central Division of the Western District of Missouri to the Southern Division of the Western District of Missouri. (Related Doc # 5) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
12 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
13 MOTION to consolidate cases, MOTION to intervene filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. suggestions in opposition due by 8/27/2001. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
15 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying Defendant New Prime's Motion to Dismiss. (Related Doc # 6) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
16 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion to consolidate cases (01-3144-CV-S-3-ECF & 01-3373-CV-S-3-ECF) All future documents shall be filed under the case number 01-3144-CV-S-3-ECF. (Related Doc # 13)

6 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

09/05/2001 09/17/2001 09/18/2001 09/18/2001
09/20/2001 09/20/2001
10/04/2001 10/04/2001 10/12/2001 10/15/2001 10/15/2001 10/23/2001 10/23/2001 10/26/2001

(Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
17 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
18 Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of all parties. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/17/2001)
19 RULES OF TRIAL issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Discovery due by 7/15/2002, pre-trial conference set for 12/5/2002 at 10:00 AM via telephone, with jury trial to be held on 1/6/2003 at 08:00 AM at Courtroom 2, Springfield (vjc) dispositive motions due by 8/16/2002, (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
21 ANSWER to complaint of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
22 MOTION for leave to file Amended Answer to Cynthia Huffman's Complaint filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 10/2/2001. (Attachments: # 1 Pleading Defendant New Prime Inc.'s Amended Answer to Cynthia Huffman's Complaint)(Related document(s)1) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s First Discovery to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s First Discovery to Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for First Interrogatories to Defendant New Prime filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/23/2001)
29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for First Request to Produce to Defendant New Prime filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/23/2001)
30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/26/2001)

7 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

10/29/2001 10/30/2001 11/06/2001 11/06/2001 11/06/2001 11/13/2001
11/13/2001 11/21/2001
11/21/2001
11/21/2001
11/30/2001 12/05/2001 12/05/2001 12/10/2001 12/12/2001

Summons Issued as to Abel Joseph Lormand (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for First Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for EEOC's Responses to Defendant's First Written Discovery filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
35 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion for leave to file (Related Doc # 22) The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Defendant's Amended Answer(Part 2 of Doc. #22) as of the date of this order. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
36 AMENDED ANSWER filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)1) (Hickman, Linda) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
37 MOTION for extension of time to File Responses to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's First Request for Production of Documents and First Interrogatories filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 12/3/2001. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
38 MOTION for extension of time to File Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents and First Interrogatories filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 12/3/2001. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
39 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION To Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Motion For Extension of Time filed by Barbara A Seely on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. Reply Suggestions due by 12/3/2001. (Related document(s)38) (Seely, Barbara) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
40 MOTION to intervene Plaintiff-Intervenor Willa Burke filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke. suggestions in opposition due by 12/12/2001. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
41 MOTION for leave to file First Amended Complaint filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. suggestions in opposition due by 12/17/2001. (Attachments: # 1)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/05/2001)
42 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Extension of Time filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 12/17/2001. (Related document(s)37) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/05/2001)
43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Rule 26 Expert Report Disclosure filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
44 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Willa Burke's Motion to Intervene filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by

8 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

12/17/2001 12/17/2001 12/17/2001 12/19/2001 12/19/2001 12/19/2001 12/21/2001 12/21/2001 12/21/2001 12/26/2001 12/28/2001
01/03/2002

12/24/2001. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s)40) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's First Discovery filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff Huffman's First Discovery filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
47 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 12/31/2001. (Related document(s)41) (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
49 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
50 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
51 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to Defendant's Opposition to Willa Burke's Motion to Intervene filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke. (Attachments: # 1)(Brown, Roger) Modified on 12/26/2001 to correct docket text(Martinez, Alexandra). (Entered: 12/21/2001)
52 Joint MOTION for protective order filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 1/7/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
53 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT EEOC's Notice of Endorsement of Motion for Stipulated Mutual Protective Order filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Related document(s)52) (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
54 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman. (Related document(s)52) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
55 REPLY SUGGESTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO CYNTHIA HUFFMAN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Christopher Michael Schappe on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 1/9/2002. (Related document(s)41) (Schappe, Christopher) Modified on 1/2/2002 to correct doc title (Howard, Linda). (Entered: 12/28/2001)
56 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Defendant's motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 37), granting motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 38) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/03/2002)

9 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

01/04/2002 01/17/2002 01/22/2002
01/22/2002 01/22/2002 01/24/2002
01/24/2002 01/25/2002 02/06/2002 02/13/2002 02/13/2002 03/05/2002 03/06/2002 03/14/2002

57 MOTION to intervene Virginia King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Virginia King. suggestions in opposition due by 1/21/2002. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
58 SUPPLEMENT Corrected Complaint of Intervenor Virginia King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
59 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO VIRGINIA KING'S MOTION TO INTERVENE filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 2/6/2002. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through C)(Related document(s)57) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
60 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Willa Burke on February 7, 2002 filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
61 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Cynthia Huffman on February 6, 2002 filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
62 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion to intervene (Related Doc # 40), granting motion for leave to file amended complaint(Related Doc # 41), granting motion to intervene (Related Doc # 57) Rescinding the Scheduling and Trial Order and staying all discovery until all defendants have been served. Within thirty days after all defendants are served, or ninety days from the date of this order, the parties shall file a new jointly proposed scheduling order/discovery plan. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
Remark: Notice regarding exhibit attachment, Exhibits A through C, received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 59) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
63 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion for protective order (Related Doc # 52) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
64 ANSWER to complaint filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
65 ANSWER to complaint of Plaintiff Willa Burke filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
66 ANSWER to complaint of Plaintiff Virginia King filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
3 Summons Issued: Littlejohn, Turner & Lormand (Curl, Glenda) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
67 MOTION for extension of time filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. suggestions in opposition due by 3/21/2002. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
68 MOTION to dismiss case Defendant Abel Lormand's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motioin for Summary Judgment filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. suggestions in opposition due by 3/29/2002. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 03/14/2002)

10 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

03/14/2002 03/18/2002 03/19/2002 03/20/2002
03/20/2002 03/29/2002
04/05/2002
04/08/2002 04/08/2002 04/10/2002 04/19/2002 04/19/2002

69 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Defendant Abel Lormand's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Affidavit of Abel Joseph Lormand)(Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
70 Supplemental CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Rule 26 Disclosure filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 03/18/2002)
71 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to serve Defendants.(Related Doc # 67) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 03/20/2002)
72 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. suggestions in opposition due by 4/4/2002. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A# 2 Attachment B# 3 Attachment C# 4 Attachment D# 5 Attachment E)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 03/20/2002)
73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 03/20/2002)
74 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION Defendant Abel Lormand's Response and Objection in Part to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant Abel Lormand's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. Reply Suggestions due by 4/15/2002. (Related document(s)72) (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
75 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Defendant Lormand's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Summary Judgment filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. Reply Suggestions due by 4/22/2002. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Related document(s)68) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
76 MOTION to dismiss party Separate Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn's Motion to Dismiss filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Kenneth Littlejohn. suggestions in opposition due by 4/23/2002. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
77 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Separate Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn's Motion to Dismiss filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Kenneth Littlejohn. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
Remark - paper copy of exhibits rec'd in Clerk's Office (Related documents(s) 75) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
78 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order extending deadline to file proposed scheduling order. proposed scheduling order due by 6/10/2002, (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
79 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file Response to Motion to Dismiss (Related Doc # 72) suggestions in opposition due by 4/29/2002. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 04/19/2002)

11 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

04/19/2002 04/22/2002
04/22/2002 05/02/2002 05/06/2002 05/07/2002 05/17/2002 05/17/2002
05/17/2002 05/23/2002 05/30/2002 06/06/2002 06/07/2002

80 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. suggestions in opposition due by 5/6/2002. (Related document(s)76) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
81 REPLY SUGGESTIONS Defendant Lormand's Reply to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Opposition to Defendant Lormand's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Related document(s)68) (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
82 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Defendant Lormand's Reply to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Opposition to Defendant Lormand's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
83 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION To Defendant Littlejohn's Motion To Dismiss filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. Reply Suggestions due by 5/17/2002. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Related document(s)76) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
Remark - Paper copy of Exhibits rec'd in Clerk's Office (Related documents(s) 83) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
84 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Finding as moot motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 80) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
Summons Issued as to Samuel Turner (Bax, Laura) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
85 MOTION to strike (Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn's Motion to Strike Exhibits A through G and Plaintiff's Affidavit Attached to Plaintiff King's Opposition to Littlejohn's Motion to Dismiss) filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Kenneth Littlejohn. suggestions in opposition due by 6/3/2002. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
86 REPLY SUGGESTIONS (Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn's Reply to Plaintiff's Virginia King's Opposition to Defendant Littlejohn's Motion to Dismiss) filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Kenneth Littlejohn. (Related document(s)76) (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
87 MOTION to withdraw/substitute attorney Arthur E. Curtis and Ben K. Upp as counsel for Defendant New Prime, Inc. filed by Ben K. Upp on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 6/7/2002. (Upp, Ben) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
88 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion to withdraw attorney Ben K. Upp, Arthur E. curtis and the firm of Husch and Eppenberger. (Related Doc # 87) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 05/30/2002)
89 Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER (Amended) filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
90 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Related document(s)89) (Brown,

12 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

06/07/2002 06/07/2002 06/07/2002 06/14/2002 06/19/2002
06/19/2002
06/20/2002 06/27/2002
06/28/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 07/03/2002
07/03/2002

Roger) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
91 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Related document(s)89) (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
92 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Kenneth Littlejohn. (Related document(s)89) (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
93 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT of Joint Proposed Scheduling Order filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
94 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order directing Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint on or before July 5, 2002. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
95 MOTION for order for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King's MHRA Claims and Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 7/5/2002. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
96 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Defendant New Prime's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King's MHRA Claims and Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
97 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
98 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Discovery due by 12/31/2002, pre-trial conference set for 4/24/2003 at 11:00 AM via telephone, with jury trial to be held on 5/27/2003 at 08:00 AM at Courtroom 2, Springfield (vjc) dispositive motions due by 1/1/2003, (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
99 Amended Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order amending dispositive motion deadline is January 31, 2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
100 MOTION to dismiss case Separate Defendant Samuel Turner's Motion to Dismiss filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Samuel Turner. suggestions in opposition due by 7/16/2002. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
101 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Defendant Samuel Turner's Motion to Dismiss filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Samuel Turner. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
102 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman against Abel Joseph Lormand, New Prime, Inc.. Filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. Service due by 10/30/2002, (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Related document(s)94) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
103 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Virginia King against Kenneth Littlejohn, New Prime, Inc.. Filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Virginia King. Service due by 10/30/2002, (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Related document(s)94) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/03/2002)

13 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

07/05/2002 07/11/2002 07/11/2002 07/11/2002 07/12/2002
07/22/2002 07/22/2002 07/22/2002
07/22/2002 07/22/2002 07/24/2002 07/26/2002 07/26/2002

Remark - Paper copy of exhibits rec'd in Clerk's Office (Related documents(s) 103) (Elayer, Glenda). (Entered: 07/08/2002)
104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Virginia King filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
105 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Willa Burke filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
106 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Second Interrogatories to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
107 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Defendant Turner's Motion to Dismiss filed by Christopher Michael Schappe on behalf of Willa Burke. Reply Suggestions due by 7/29/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s)100) (Schappe, Christopher) Paper copy of exhibits rec'd in Clerk's Office on 7/15/2002 (Elayer, Glenda). (Entered: 07/12/2002)
108 ANSWER to amended complaint (Related Doc # 102) filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
109 ANSWER to amended complaint (Related Doc # 103) filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
110 MOTION for order for Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King's MHRA Claims and Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 8/6/2002. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
111 MOTION for order for Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff Huffman's Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 8/6/2002. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
112 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff Huffman's Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE EEOC's 2d Interrogatories and 2d Request to Produce to New Prime, Inc. filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/24/2002)
114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Answers and Objections to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Second Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
115 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Answers and Objections to Plaintiff Willa Burke's First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica)

14 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

07/26/2002
07/29/2002 07/29/2002 07/29/2002
08/01/2002
08/05/2002 08/05/2002 08/05/2002 08/12/2002 08/12/2002 08/12/2002 08/12/2002 08/13/2002 08/15/2002

(Entered: 07/26/2002)
116 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Answers and Objections to Plaintiff Virginia King's First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
117 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. suggestions in opposition due by 8/13/2002. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
118 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
119 REPLY SUGGESTIONS Defendant Samuel Turner's Reply to Plaintiff Willa Burke's Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant Turner's Motion to Dismiss filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Samuel Turner. (Related document(s)100) (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES to Defendants Littlejohn, Turner and Lormand filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/01/2002)
121 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Virginia King on August 20, 2002 filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
122 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Cynthia Huffman on August 21, 2002 filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
123 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Willa Burke on August 22, 2002 filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
124 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn's motion to dismiss party (Related Doc # 76) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
125 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying Defendant Abel Lormand's motion to dismiss case (Related Doc # 68) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
126 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
127 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
128 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Finding as moot Defendant's motion to strike (Related Doc # 85) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
129 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Samuel Turner. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 08/15/2002)

15 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

08/15/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002

130 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
131 MOTION to dismiss party (Defendant Abel Lormand's Second Motion to Dismiss) filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. suggestions in opposition due by 9/3/2002. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
132 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand's Second Motion to Dismiss filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
133 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Virginia King. Reply Suggestions due by 9/3/2002. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Related document(s)110) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
134 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Defendant's Motionfor Judgment on Pleadings filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 9/3/2002. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Related document(s)111) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
135 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Stan Auman on Aug. 29, 2002 filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
136 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Kenneth Littlejohn on September 17, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
137 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Abel Lormand on September 16, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
138 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Samuel Turner on September 18, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
139 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Kim Haynes on August 28, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
140 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Don Lacy on August 29, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) Modified on 8/20/2002 to correct date(Polodna, Christy). (Entered: 08/19/2002)
141 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Brian Love on August 28, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
142 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of John Stanton on August 29, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/19/2002)

16 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

08/21/2002 08/21/2002 08/22/2002 08/26/2002
08/28/2002 08/28/2002 08/30/2002 08/30/2002
09/03/2002
09/03/2002 09/03/2002
09/04/2002 09/04/2002 09/09/2002

143 Amended NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Kim Haynes on August 28, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
144 Amended NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Don Lacy on August 30, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
145 ORDER transferring/reassigning case from Judge Ortrie D. Smith to Judge Richard E. Dorr (Martinez, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/23/2002)
146 MOTION for extension of time to File Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's Second Request for Production of Documents and Second Interrogatories filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 9/10/2002. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
147 ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFER ORDER reassigning case from Judge Richard E. Dorr to Judge Ortrie D. Smith (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
148 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 146) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
149 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying Defendant Samuel Turner's motion to dismiss (Related Doc # 100) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
150 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LORMAND'S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 9/16/2002. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s)131) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
151 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Answers/Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's Second Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
152 REPLY SUGGESTIONS filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)111) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
153 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to Plaintiff's Opposition to Prime's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff King's MHRA Claim and Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress Claim filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)95) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
154 Amended NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Abel Joseph Lormand on September 17, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
155 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Randy Price on September 19, 2002 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
156 MOTION to amend (Defendant Samuel Turner's Motion to Amend Court's Order or for Reconsideration) filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Samuel Turner. suggestions in opposition due by 9/24/2002. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered:

17 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

09/09/2002 09/11/2002 09/11/2002
09/13/2002
09/16/2002 09/17/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002 09/25/2002 09/27/2002

09/09/2002)
157 ANSWER to complaint (Separate Defendant Samuel Turner's Answer to Complaint of Intervenor Willa Burke) filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Samuel Turner. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
158 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying Defendant's motion to amend order or for reconsideration. (Related Doc # 156) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
159 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (regarding Turner's Objections to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Lormand's Objections to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents) filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand, Samuel Turner. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
160 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Defendant New Prime's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff Kings MHRA claims (Related Doc # 95), denying Defendant New Prime's Renewed Motion for Judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff King's MHRA claims and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claim as moot (Related Doc # 110), dismissing Plaintiff Huffman's and Plaintiff Kings intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress claims (Related Doc # 111), denying Plaintif's motion for extension of time as moot (Related Doc # 117) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
161 REPLY SUGGESTIONS Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand's Reply to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant Lormand's Second Motion to Dismiss filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Related document(s)131) (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
162 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying Defendant Abel Lormand's Second motion to dismiss (Related Doc # 131) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/17/2002)
163 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Donald D. Lacy filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Martinez, Alexandra) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
164 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Stanley Auman filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Martinez, Alexandra) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
165 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Brian Love filed by Barbara A Seely on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Howard, Linda) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
166 ANSWER to amended complaint (Related Doc # 102) Separate Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand's Answer to Plaintiff-Intervenor Cynthia Huffman's Second Amended Complaint filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
167 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Jon Michael Stanton filed by Christopher Michael Schappe on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Howard, Linda) (Entered: 09/27/2002)

18 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

10/01/2002 10/01/2002 10/08/2002 10/15/2002 10/15/2002 10/16/2002 10/17/2002 10/17/2002 10/17/2002 11/07/2002
11/07/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002

168 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES of Expert Dr. Terrence Rohen filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
169 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman. (Brown, Roger) Modified on 10/2/2002 - corrected event (Martinez, Alexandra). (Entered: 10/01/2002)
170 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
171 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand's Answers to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
172 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Defendant Samuel Turner's Answers to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Defendant Samuel Turner's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Samuel Turner. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
173 MOTION for extension of time Defendant New P rime, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Its Designation of Expert Witnesses filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of New Prime, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 10/30/2002. (Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
174 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Joseph Lormand taken on 9/18/02 filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
175 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Kimberly Haynes taken on 8/28/02 filed by Christopher Michael Schappe on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman. (Rilling, Karen) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
176 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Defendant's motion for extension of time to file its designation of expert witnesses.(Related Doc # 173) (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
177 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand's First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman and Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand's First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
178 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant Samuel Turner's First Interrogatories to Plaintiff Willa Burke and Defendant Samuel Turner's First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Willa Burke filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Samuel Turner. (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
179 NOTICE to take deposition of John Hubbell, Ed.D., by videotape filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
180 NOTICE to take deposition of Bertha Blanchard, M.D., by videotape, filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning,

19 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/13/2002 11/13/2002 11/13/2002 11/14/2002
11/14/2002
11/15/2002
11/19/2002 11/19/2002 11/21/2002

Monica) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
181 NOTICE to take deposition of William P. Osborn, Ph.D., by videotape, filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
182 NOTICE to take deposition of Y. Susi Folse, M.D., by videotape, filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
183 NOTICE to take deposition of Rose Bisette filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
184 NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. William P. Osborn filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
185 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Abel Lormand filed by Christopher Michael Schappe on behalf of Intervenor Willa Burke.(Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
186 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Samuel Turner filed by Christopher Michael Schappe on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
187 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Randy Price filed by Christopher Michael Schappe on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
188 MOTION to withdraw as attorney (Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel and Entry of Appearance of Substituted Counsel) filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/29/2002 (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
189 MOTION to withdraw as attorney (Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel and Entry of Appearance of Substituted Counsel) filed by Tina G. Fowler on behalf of Samuel Turner Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/29/2002 (Fowler, Tina) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
190 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
191 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision First Request for Admissions to Defendant New Prime, Inc. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/19/2002)
192 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Third Request to Produce to Defendant New Prime, Inc. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/19/2002)
193 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Second Request for Admissions to Defendant New Prime, Inc. (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/21/2002)

20 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

11/22/2002 11/22/2002 11/22/2002 11/25/2002 11/26/2002 11/26/2002 11/26/2002 11/27/2002
11/27/2002 11/27/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002

194 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman re 178 Certificate of Service,, 177 Certificate of Service, (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
195 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cynthia Huffman (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
196 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
197 ORDER granting 189 motion to withdraw as attorney. Attorney Tina G. Fowler terminated.Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 11/25/2002. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
198 NOTICE to take deposition of Catherine Watson filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
199 NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. W.G. Watson filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
200 NOTICE to take deposition of Patricia Stafford filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. for First Requests for Admissions to all Plaintiffs filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendants New Prime, Inc., New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
202 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendants New Prime, Inc., New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
203 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendants New Prime, Inc., New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
204 NOTICE to take deposition of Annette King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
205 NOTICE to take deposition of Francis Parker filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
206 NOTICE to take deposition of Richard King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
207 NOTICE to take deposition of Terrence M. Rohen, Ph.D. filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/03/2002)

21 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/06/2002 12/06/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/11/2002
12/11/2002 12/13/2002

208 NOTICE to take deposition of Annette King, Richard King and Francis Parker filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
209 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
210 NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. Lisa Hendrix filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
211 NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. Carlos Salgueiro filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
212 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Heather R. Hamilton on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/24/2002 (Hamilton, Heather) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
213 NOTICE to take deposition of Stan Woodall filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
214 NOTICE to take deposition of John Hancock filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
215 NOTICE to take deposition of Barbara Mayhew filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
216 NOTICE to take deposition of Shelly Abbey (Langhoefer) filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
217 NOTICE to take deposition of Steven Crawford filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
218 NOTICE to take deposition of Karen Brigham filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
219 NOTICE to take deposition of Woodall, Hancock, MAyhew, Abbey, Brigham and Crawford filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
220 NOTICE to take deposition of Victoria Mitchell filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
221 ORDER granting 212 motion to withdraw as attorney. Attorney Heather R. Hamilton terminated Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/13/2002. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/16/2002)

22 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002
12/24/2002 12/24/2002 12/27/2002 12/31/2002 01/02/2003 01/03/2003 01/06/2003
01/06/2003 01/06/2003 01/09/2003 01/09/2003

222 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Virginia King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Virginia King.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
223 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. for Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Admissions filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
224 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. for Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's Third Request for Production of Documents filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
225 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. for Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's Second Request for Admissions filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
226 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Willa Burke.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
228 Joint MOTION to amend/correct Scheduling Order filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of all parties Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/15/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
229 NOTICE of endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 228 Joint MOTION to amend/correct Scheduling Order (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
230 NOTICE of endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Joint Proposed Scheduling Order (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
231 ORDER granting 228 motion to amend scheduling order. All pretrial discovery shall be completed on or before 02/28/2003. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before April 1, 2003. PTC will be held at 11:00 a.m. on 08/06/2003 via telephone. Jury trial at 8:00 a.m. on 09/08/2003 in Springfield, MO. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 01/06/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
232 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. for Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
233 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. for Responses to Plaintiff King's First Request for Admissions filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
234 NOTICE to take deposition of William P. Osborn, Ph.D. filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
235 Joint MOTION for order Compelling the Parties' Psychological Expert Witnesses to Produce Raw Data/Testing Materials filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/24/2003

23 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

01/09/2003 01/09/2003
01/10/2003 01/10/2003 01/13/2003
01/16/2003
01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/20/2003 01/20/2003

(Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
236 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cynthia Huffman filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
237 NOTICE of endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision of Joint Motion of Parties Requesting Order Compelling Parties' Psychological Expert Witnesses to Produce Raw Data/Testing Materials (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
238 ORDER granting 235joint motion for order. Order directing psychological expert witnesses to produce raw data and testing materials relating to Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 01/10/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
239 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. for Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Huffman filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
240 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. of Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Responses to the Document Requests in Plaintiffs' Duces Tecum Deposition Notices filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
241 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Stan Woodall filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff EEOC.(Martinez, Alexandra) Modified on 1/16/2003 -corrected docket text, filer (Martinez, Alexandra). (Entered: 01/16/2003)
242 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Victoria Elizabeth Mitchell filed by Robert G. Johnson on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Howard, Linda) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
243 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Shelley Langhofer filed by Christopher Michael Schappe on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
244 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Barbara Mayhew filed by Robert G. Johnson on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Howard, Linda) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
245 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Steven Crawford filed by Christopher Michael Schappe on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Martinez, Alexandra) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
246 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of John Hancock taken on 12/16/02 filed by Barbara A Seely on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
247 NOTICE to take deposition of Mary Fuller filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 01/20/2003)
248 NOTICE to take deposition of Arthur Newton filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 01/20/2003)

24 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/23/2003
01/23/2003 01/23/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/28/2003
01/28/2003
01/30/2003 01/30/2003 01/30/2003 01/30/2003

249 NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. W.G. Watson filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
250 NOTICE to take deposition of Lori Lormand filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
251 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. of Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Third Interrogatories to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman and Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Second Interrogatories to Plaintiff Willa Burke filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
252 NOTICE to take deposition of Don Burke filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
253 NOTICE to take deposition of Roger Paulish filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
254 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
255 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
256 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. for Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
257 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Fourth Request to Produce and Third Interrogatories to Defendant New Prime, Inc. filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
258 NOTICE to take deposition of Gary Jackson filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
259 NOTICE to take deposition of Dan Black filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
260 NOTICE to take deposition of Karen Brigham filed by Robert G. Johnson on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Johnson, Robert) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
261 NOTICE to take deposition of John Moore filed by Robert G. Johnson on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Johnson, Robert) (Entered: 01/30/2003)

25 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

01/31/2003 02/03/2003 02/05/2003 02/05/2003 02/05/2003 02/05/2003 02/05/2003 02/05/2003 02/06/2003 02/14/2003 02/18/2003 02/19/2003 02/21/2003
02/21/2003 02/26/2003

262 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. of expert reports by Dr. William O'Connor filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
263 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cynthia Huffman filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
264 NOTICE to take deposition of William Signaigo filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
265 NOTICE to take deposition of Annette King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
266 NOTICE to take deposition of Richard King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
267 NOTICE to take deposition of Patricia Stafford filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
268 NOTICE of appearance by F Douglas Montegue on behalf of Willa Burke, Virginia King (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
269 NOTICE to take deposition of Richard King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
270 NOTICE to take deposition of Frances Parker filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
271 NOTICE to take deposition of Sergeant Linda Johnson filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
272 NOTICE to take deposition of Sgt. Linda Johnson filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
273 NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. William O'Connor filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
274 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision EEOC Response to Defendant's Request for Production to Plaintiff EEOC filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
275 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
276 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Willa Burke.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

26 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

02/26/2003
02/27/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003
02/27/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003
02/27/2003 02/28/2003 03/03/2003 03/05/2003 03/05/2003 03/20/2003

277 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Rule 26 Disclosures filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
278 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
279 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cynthia Huffman Rule 26 Fifth Disclosure filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
280 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. Amended (Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures) filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
281 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Plaintiff EEOC's Rule 26 Second Supplemental Disclosures filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
282 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. Third Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
283 ORDER regarding financial records. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 02/27/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
284 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by New Prime, Inc. Discovery Responses to EEOC's Third Interrogatories and Fourth Request for Production filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
285 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Virginia King Rule 26 Damage Disclosures filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
286 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
287 ORDER in regard to discovery conference on 02/28/2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 03/03/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
288 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of John Moore taken on 2/11/03 filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc..(Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
289 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Karen Brigham, filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.(Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
290 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Supplemental Rule 26 and Interrogatory and Request for Production filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King,

27 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

03/20/2003 03/20/2003 03/31/2003 03/31/2003
03/31/2003
03/31/2003 04/01/2003 04/01/2003
04/01/2003 04/01/2003 04/02/2003 04/08/2003
04/08/2003

Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
291 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Daniel K. Black taken on 2/12/03 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
292 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Gary L. Jackson on 2/12/03 on behalf of Plaintiffs.(Rilling, Karen) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
MOTION for summary judgment filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand suggestions in opposition due by 4/30/2003. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
297 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand suggestions in opposition due by 5/1/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(McPhail, Kendall) Modified on 4/1/2003 - corrected file date; atty refiled to due access error (Martinez, Alexandra). (Entered: 04/01/2003)
298 SUGGESTIONS in support re 297 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand. (Related document(s)297) (McPhail, Kendall) Modified on 4/1/2003 - corrected file date; atty refiled due to access error (Martinez, Alexandra). (Entered: 04/01/2003)
***Remark: Doc #293 deleted due to access error; atty refiled as doc #297 & #298 (Martinez, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
294 MOTION for partial summary judgment filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision suggestions in opposition due by 5/1/2003. (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
295 SUGGESTIONS in support re 294 MOTION for partial summary judgment filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s)294) (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
296 MOTION for extension of time filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/16/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
***Remark: Notice of Exhibit Attachment to Document #295 received in paper by court (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
299 ORDER granting 296Defendant's motion for extension of time up to and including April 8, 2003 to file dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 04/02/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
300 MOTION for partial summary judgment on Claims of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman and Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Cynthia Huffman filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. suggestions in opposition due by 5/8/2003. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
301 SUGGESTIONS in support re 300 MOTION for partial summary judgment on Claims of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman and Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Cynthia Huffman filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s)300)

28 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

04/08/2003
04/08/2003
04/08/2003 04/08/2003
04/08/2003 04/21/2003 04/21/2003 04/28/2003
04/28/2003
04/29/2003 04/30/2003

(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
302 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Willa Burke and All Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Willa Burke filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. suggestions in opposition due by 5/8/2003. (Sullivan, James) Modified on 9/4/2003 to terminate pending motion per Courtroom Deputy (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 04/08/2003)
303 SUGGESTIONS in support re 302 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Willa Burke and All Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Willa Burke filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s)302) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
304 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Virginia King and All Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Virginia King filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. suggestions in opposition due by 5/8/2003. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
305 SUGGESTIONS in support re 304 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Virginia King and All Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Virginia King filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s)304) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
***Remark - Notice of Exhibit Attachments to document #301, #303 and #305 received in paper by court (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
306 MOTION to withdraw as attorney of Record, David L. Wieland filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/6/2003 (Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
307 ORDER granting 306 motion to withdraw as attorney, David L. Wieland. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 04/21/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
308 SUGGESTIONS in opposition to motion for summary judgment re 297 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 5/13/2003. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Related document(s)297) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
309 MOTION to strike 297 MOTION for summary judgment, 298 Suggestions in Support of Motion, filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/13/2003 Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/13/2003 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Related document(s)297, 298) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
310 Joint MOTION for extension of time for Parties to File Suggestions in Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/14/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
311 ORDER granting 310 joint motion for extension of time. Opposition to Plaintifs' Motion for S/J due on or before May 8, 2003; Plaintiffs opposition due on or before May 28, 2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 04/30/2003.

29 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

05/08/2003 05/08/2003 05/23/2003 05/28/2003
05/28/2003 05/28/2003 05/28/2003 05/28/2003
05/29/2003 05/29/2003

(Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
312 SUGGESTIONS in opposition to motion for summary judgment re 294 MOTION for partial summary judgment filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 5/23/2003. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s)294) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
***Remark: Exhibits 46, Vol. 1 & 2 to dft New Prime, Inc's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment received in paper by court (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
313 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 294 MOTION for partial summary judgment Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Opposition filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Related document(s)294) (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
314 MOTION for leave to file excess pages Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit for Argument Portions of Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Motions for Summary Judgment as to All Claims of Burke and King and the EEOC on Their Behalf filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/12/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
315 ORDER granting 314Plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed page length for argument portions of suggestions in opposition to Defendant New Prime's Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 05/28/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
316 SUGGESTIONS in opposition (UNDER SEAL) re 300 MOTION for partial summary judgment on Claims of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman and Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Cynthia Huffman filed by Rebecca Stith, Andrea Taylor on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 6/12/2003. (Related document(s)300) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
317 SUGGESTIONS in opposition (UNDER SEAL) re 302 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Willa Burke and All Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Willa Burke filed by Rebecca Stith, Andrea Taylor on behalf of Intervenor Willa Burke. Reply Suggestions due by 6/12/2003. (Related document(s)302) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
318 SUGGESTIONS in opposition to motion for summary judgment (UNDER SEAL) re 304 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Virginia King and All Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Virginia King filed by Rebecca Stith, Andrea Taylor on behalf of Intervenor Virginia King. Reply Suggestions due by 6/12/2003. (Related document(s)304) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
319 NOTICE of Endorsement by Cynthia Huffman re 300 MOTION for partial summary judgment on Claims of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman and Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Cynthia Huffman (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
320 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke re 302 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Willa Burke and All Claims of Plaintiff

30 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

05/29/2003 06/06/2003 06/09/2003 06/18/2003 06/18/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003
06/19/2003
06/19/2003
06/19/2003

EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Willa Burke (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
321 NOTICE of Endorsement by Virginia King re 304 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Virginia King and All Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Virginia King (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
322 MOTION for extension of time to File Replies to Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Defendant Prime's Motions for Summary Judgment filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/23/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
323 ORDER granting 322 Defendant New Prime's unopposed motion for extension of time to file its replies to Plaintiffs' oppositions to New Prime's Motions for Summary Judgemtn on or before June 19, 2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 06/09/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
324 MOTION for leave to file excess pages for Reply Briefs to Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Prime's Motions for Summary Judgment filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/3/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
325 ORDER granting 324Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s motion for leave to file excess pages. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 06/18/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
326 MOTION for hearing /Request for Oral Arguments on Prime's Motions for Summary Judgment filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/7/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
327 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 300 MOTION for partial summary judgment on Claims of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman and Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Cynthia Huffman /Reply to Plaintiff Huffman's Opposition to Prime's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s)300) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
328 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 302 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Willa Burke and All Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Willa Burke /Reply to Plaintiff Burke's Opposition to Prime's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s)302) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
329 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 304 MOTION for summary judgment on All Claims of Plaintiff Virginia King and All Claims of Plaintiff EEOC Relating to Plaintiff Virginia King /Reply to Plaintiff King's Opposition to Prime's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s)304) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
***Remark: Notice of Exhibit attachment to document #327, #328 and #329 received in paper by court (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 06/20/2003)

31 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

06/24/2003 06/26/2003 06/27/2003 07/02/2003
07/02/2003 07/03/2003
07/07/2003 07/11/2003
07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/15/2003 07/18/2003
07/21/2003 07/21/2003

330 Motion (filed under seal) to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims or to Order Separate Trials and Suggestions in Support (Attachments: # 1)(Sullivan, James) Modified on 7/14/2003 - corrected docket text(Martinez, Alexandra). (Entered: 06/24/2003)
331 NOTICE of filing by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Request for Oral Argument (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
332 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
333 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply to Defendant New Prime Inc.'s Motion to Sever filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/17/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
334 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 333 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply to Defendant New Prime Inc.'s Motion to Sever (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
335 ORDER granting 333 motion for extension of time to file response/reply re 333 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply to Defendant New Prime Inc.'s Motion to Sever Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 7/3/2003. (McIlvain, Kelly) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/10/2003 (McIlvain, Kelly). (Entered: 07/08/2003)
***Remark - Doc No. 335 (Motion granting Extension of Time to file Response to Motion to Sever) has been deleted due to filing error. (Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
336 Plaintiffs' Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Motion to Sever Claims or to Order Separate Trials (Attachments: # 1)(Reply Suggestions due 7/28/03)(Taylor, Andrea) Modified on 7/14/2003 - corrected text; set ddl) (Martinez, Alexandra). (Entered: 07/11/2003)
337 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 336 Notice of filing, (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
***Remark: Notice of exhibit attachment to document #336 received in paper by court (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
338 ORDER reminding PTC on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 07/15/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
339 ORDER denying 297Defendant Abel Lormand's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count VI of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Second Amended Complaint and, denying 309 Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Motion to Strike Defendant Abel Lormand's Motion for summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 07/18/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
340 MOTION to sever filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/5/2003 (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
341 SUGGESTIONS in support re 340 MOTION to sever filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand. (Related

32 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

07/21/2003 07/21/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003
07/23/2003

document(s)340) (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
342 MOTION to sever filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Samuel Turner Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/5/2003 (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
343 SUGGESTIONS in support re 342 MOTION to sever filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Defendant Samuel Turner. (Related document(s)342) (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
344 MOTION to bifurcate Trial on Claims for Punitive Damages filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/7/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
345 SUGGESTIONS in support re 344 MOTION to bifurcate Trial on Claims for Punitive Damages filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)344) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
346 MOTION in limine With Regard to Irrelevant Employment Records and Information filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/7/2003 (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
347 MOTION in limine with Regard to Lack of Rape and Assault Prosecutions filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/7/2003 (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
348 MOTION in limine to Exclude Irrelevant Medical Records filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/7/2003 (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
349 MOTION in limine Regarding Plaintiffs' Other Legal and Administrative Proceedings and Information Related Thereto filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/7/2003 (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
350 MOTION in limine filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/7/2003 (Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
351 SUGGESTIONS in support re 350 MOTION in limine filed by JoAnne Spears Jackson on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s)350) (Jackson, JoAnne) Modified on 7/25/2003 to acknowledge receipt of exhibits in Kansas City Division Clerk's Office on 5/24/03(Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 07/23/2003)
352 MOTION in limine With Regard to the Introduction of Qual-Comms filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/7/2003 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(Brown, Roger) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/24/2003 (Polodna, Christy). Modified on 7/24/2003 to reflect receipt of paper exhibit A received in JC Clerk's office and forward to Springfield Clerk's Office (Bax, Laura). (Entered: 07/23/2003)

33 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

07/24/2003 07/24/2003 07/24/2003
07/28/2003 07/28/2003 07/28/2003 07/28/2003 07/28/2003 07/29/2003 07/29/2003 07/29/2003 07/30/2003

***Remark - Doc No. 353 (Notice Exhibit Attachment) deleted and attached to Doc No. 352 (Pltf's Motion in Limine). (Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
353 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision of Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine Filed on July 23, 2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
354 ORDER (1) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (2) granting in part and denying in part Defendant Prime's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Huffman's claims;(3) granting in part and denying in part Defendant Prime's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Burke's claim; (4) granting in part and denying in part Defendant Prime's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff King's claims; (5) denying as moot Defendant Prime's request for Oral Arguments on its Motions for Summary Judgment; (6) denying as moot Plaintiffs' request for oral arguments on their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 294300302304326331. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 07/24/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
355 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 344 MOTION to bifurcate Trial on Claims for Punitive Damages filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. Reply Suggestions due by 8/12/2003. (Related document(s)344) (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
356 NOTICE of filing by New Prime, Inc. of Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Prime's Motion to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims or Order Separate Trials (previously filed under seal) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
357 DESIGNATION Deposition Testimony by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
358 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision of Plaintiffs' Designation of Deposition Testimony (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
359 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 355 Suggestions in Opposition to Motion, (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
360 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 340 MOTION to sever, 342 MOTION to sever filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 8/13/2003. (Related document(s)340, 342) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
361 MOTION to amend/correct Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/13/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
362 DESIGNATION Amended by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
363 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 361 MOTION to amend/correct Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/30/2003)

34 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

07/30/2003 07/31/2003
07/31/2003
07/31/2003 07/31/2003
08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/04/2003 08/04/2003 08/05/2003
08/05/2003

364 ORDER granting 361 motion to amend deposition designations. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 07/30/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/30/2003)
365 Joint MOTION for order to Extend Certain Pretrial Filing Deadlines filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/15/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
366 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Certain Pretrial Deadlines (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
367 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
368 MOTION to amend/correct Deposition Designation of Dr. William O'Connor filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/15/2003 (Attachments: # 1)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
369 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST by New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
370 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST by New Prime, Inc... (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
371 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
372 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King.. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
373 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST by Abel Joseph Lormand.. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
374 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST by Abel Joseph Lormand. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
375 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST by Samuel Turner.. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
376 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST by Samuel Turner. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
377 STIPULATION of Uncontroverted Facts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
378 STIPULATION Regarding Exhibits by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
379 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision of Plaintiffs' Exhibit List and Witness List for Trial (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
380 NOTICE of Endorsement by New Prime, Inc. for Joint Stipulations Regarding Exhibits (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/05/2003)

35 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

08/05/2003 08/05/2003
08/05/2003 08/05/2003
08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/07/2003
08/08/2003 08/08/2003 08/08/2003
08/08/2003
08/08/2003 08/08/2003

381 NOTICE of Endorsement by New Prime, Inc. for Joint Stipulation of Uncontroverted Facts (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
382 MOTION for extension of time to File Defendant Prime's Objections and Counter-Designations to Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/20/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
383 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 377 Stipulation, 378 Stipulation (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
385 ORDER granting 365 motionto extend certain pretrial filing deadlines, granting 368 plaintiff's unopposed motion to correct Dr. William O'Connor's deposition designation. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/5/2003. (McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
384 ORDER granting 382 motion for extension of time to file objections and counter-designations to plaintiffs' deposition designations. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/6/2003. (McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
386 DESIGNATION Deposition Designations by New Prime, Inc.. (Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
387 NOTICE of Endorsement by New Prime, Inc. Deposition Designations (Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
388 MOTION for leave to file excess pages for Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant New Prime's Motion in Limine filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/22/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2003 (Polodna, Christy). (Entered: 08/07/2003)
***Remark - Doc No. 389 (Sugg in Opp) deleted and attached to Doc No. 388 (Mot for leave to file excess pgs). (Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
389 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 350 MOTION in limine (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
390 ORDER entered by Judge James C. England on 08/08/03. Settlement Conference is set 08/26/03 at 9:30 AM at Magistrate Courtroom, Springfield (JCE) before Magistrate Judge James C. England. Lead counsel and all persons with settlement authority are required to be present.(Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
391 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 347 MOTION in limine with Regard to Lack of Rape and Assault Prosecutions filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 8/25/2003. (Related document(s)347) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
392 ORDER granting 388 motion for leave to file excess pages. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/8/2003. (McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
393 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 348 MOTION in limine to Exclude Irrelevant Medical Records filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 8/25/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through C)(Related document(s)348) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/08/2003)

36 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

08/08/2003
08/08/2003
08/08/2003
08/08/2003 08/08/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/12/2003
08/12/2003

394 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 346 MOTION in limine With Regard to Irrelevant Employment Records and Information filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 8/25/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through C)(Related document(s)346) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
395 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 349 MOTION in limine Regarding Plaintiffs' Other Legal and Administrative Proceedings and Information Related Thereto filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 8/25/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s)349) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
396 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 352 MOTION in limine With Regard to the Introduction of Qual-Comms filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 8/25/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s)352) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
397 DESIGNATION Deposition by Abel Joseph Lormand. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
398 DESIGNATION Deposition Designations by Samuel Turner. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
399 MOTION to withdraw document 359 filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/26/2003 (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
400 MOTION for leave to file Substitute Response to New Prime, Inc.'s Motion to Bifurcate filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/26/2003 (Attachments: # 1)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
401 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 355 Suggestions in Opposition to Motion, filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/26/2003 (Related document(s)355) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
402 SUGGESTIONS in support re 340 MOTION to sever, 342 MOTION to sever Response of Defendants Lormand and Turner to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Sever filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Defendant Samuel Turner. (Related document(s)340, 342) (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
403 ORDER granting Plaintiffs Huffman, Burke and King's Motion to Withdraw Notice of Endorsement to Plaintiff EEOC's opposition to Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate, and granting Plaintiffs Huffman, Burke and King's Motion for Leave to File Substitute Response to Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate on or before 08/14/2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 08/12/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
404 ORDER granting 401 motion for extension of time to file reply re 344 MOTION to bifurcate Trial on Claims for Punitive Damages Reply Suggestions due by 8/15/2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 08/12/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/12/2003)

37 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

08/12/2003
08/12/2003 08/12/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003 08/14/2003 08/15/2003
08/17/2003 08/17/2003
08/19/2003 08/19/2003 08/19/2003

405 ORDER denying 340 330 342 Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Motion to Sever Plaintiff's Claims or to Order Separate Trials; denying Defendant Abel Lormand's Motion to Sever; and denying Defendant Samuel Turner's Motion to Sever. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 08/12/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
406 RESPONSE to motion re 344 MOTION to bifurcate Trial on Claims for Punitive Damages filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Intervenor Parties Willa Burke, Virginia King, Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 8/27/2003. (Related document(s)344) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
407 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine, and granting in part and denying in part Defendant New Prime's Motions in Limine346 347 348 349 350 352. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 08/12/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
SETTLEMENT TELECONFERENCE held before Judge James C. England (no document attached) (Martinez, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
408 OBJECTIONS (non motions) and Counter-Designations to Plaintiffs' Amended Deposition Designations. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
409 ORDER by Judge James C. England Teleconference set for 8/21/2003 09:00 AM before James England. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
410 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 344 MOTION to bifurcate Trial on Claims for Punitive Damages filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Deposition Transcript# 2 Exhibit B Civil Instruction# 3 Exhibit C - EEOC Guideline)(Related document(s)344) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
411 MOTION to dismiss case Defendant Lormand's Motion to Dismiss Count VIII of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/2/2003 (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/17/2003)
412 SUGGESTIONS in support re 411 MOTION to dismiss case Defendant Lormand's Motion to Dismiss Count VIII of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Suggestions in Support of Defendant Lormand's Motion to Dismiss Count VIII of Plaintiff Huffman's Second Amended Complaint filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand. (Related document(s)411) (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/17/2003)
413 ORDER denying 344 motion to bifurcate. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/19/2003. (McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
414 ORDER denying 411 motion to dismiss Count VII of Plaintiff Cunthia Huffman's Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/19/2003. (McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
415 ORDER setting out numerous rulings. Telephone Conference set for 8/29/2003 10:00 AM before Ortrie Smith.. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/19/2003. (McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

38 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

08/20/2003 08/20/2003 08/20/2003
08/20/2003
08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003
08/22/2003
08/22/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003

416 MOTION for reconsideration filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/4/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
417 SUGGESTIONS in support re 416 MOTION for reconsideration filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)416) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
418 MOTION for reconsideration in part of August 12, 2003, Order on Motions in Limine filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/4/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
419 SUGGESTIONS in support re 418 MOTION for reconsideration in part of August 12, 2003, Order on Motions in Limine filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Related document(s)418) (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
420 ORDER rescheduling telephone conference to be held on 8/29/2003 at 02:00 PM at Chambers. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 08/21/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
SETTLEMENT TELECONFERENCE held on 8/21/2003 before Judge James C. England (no doc attached) (Martinez, Alexandra) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
421 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 386 DESIGNATION. Related document: 386 DESIGNATION filed by New Prime, Inc..(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
422 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 397 DESIGNATION. Related document: 397 DESIGNATION filed by Abel Joseph Lormand.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
423 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
424 MOTION for order to Preclude Plaintiffs' Experts from Offering Inappropriate Opinion Testimony and From Testifying Before a Proper Factual Foundation Has Been Laid filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/8/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
425 SUGGESTIONS in support re 424 MOTION for order to Preclude Plaintiffs' Experts from Offering Inappropriate Opinion Testimony and From Testifying Before a Proper Factual Foundation Has Been Laid filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s)424) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
426 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
427 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
428 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Abel Joseph Lormand Defendant Lormand's Proposed Jury Instructions. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/22/2003)

39 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

08/23/2003 08/25/2003 08/25/2003
08/25/2003 08/25/2003 08/25/2003 08/25/2003 08/26/2003 08/26/2003 08/26/2003
08/26/2003
08/26/2003

429 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Samuel Turner Defendant Turner's Proposed Jury Instructions. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/23/2003)
430 Joint MOTION in limine Defendants Lormand and Turner's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Samuel Turner Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/9/2003 (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
431 SUGGESTIONS in support re 430 Joint MOTION in limine Defendants Lormand and Turner's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony Suggestions Of Defendants Lormand and Turner in Support of Motion to Exlucde Certain Opinion Testimony filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Defendant Samuel Turner. (Related document(s)430) (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
432 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 398 DESIGNATION. Related document: 398 DESIGNATION filed by Samuel Turner.(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
433 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision for Plaintiffs' Objections to Deposition Designations of Defendants (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
434 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of William P. Osborn filed by Christopher Schappe on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman.(Bax, Laura) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
435 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
436 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision of Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Instructions (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
437 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 416 MOTION for reconsideration and Motion in Limine of Defendant New Prime filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. Reply Suggestions due by 9/10/2003. (Related document(s)416) (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
438 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 430 Joint MOTION in limine Defendants Lormand and Turner's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony, 424 MOTION for order to Preclude Plaintiffs' Experts from Offering Inappropriate Opinion Testimony and From Testifying Before a Proper Factual Foundation Has Been Laid filed by Rebecca Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. Reply Suggestions due by 9/10/2003. (Related document(s)430, 424) (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
439 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 430 Joint MOTION in limine Defendants Lormand and Turner's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony, 424 MOTION for order to Preclude Plaintiffs' Experts from Offering Inappropriate Opinion Testimony and From Testifying Before a Proper Factual Foundation Has Been Laid (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
440 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 416 MOTION for reconsideration (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/26/2003)

40 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

08/27/2003
08/28/2003 08/29/2003 08/29/2003 08/29/2003 08/29/2003 08/29/2003 08/29/2003 08/31/2003
09/02/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003

441 ORDER (1) denying New Prime's Motions for Reconsideration, (2) denying in part and granting in part New Prime's Motion relating to Plaintiffs' experts, and (3) denying Lormand's and Turner's Motion relating to Plaintiffs' experts. 416 424 430. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 08/27/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
442 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 418 MOTION for reconsideration in part of August 12, 2003, Order on Motions in Limine filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 9/12/2003. (Related document(s)418) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
443 ORDER denying 418Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiff Huffman's Dissolution and Custody Proceedings and Information Related Thereto. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 08/29/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
444 ORDER signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/29/2003. (Kitsmiller, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
445 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 423 Proposed Voir Dire. Related document: 423 Proposed Voir Dire filed by Cynthia Huffman, Willa Burke, Virginia King.(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
446 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 435 Proposed Jury Instructions. Related document: 435 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Cynthia Huffman, Willa Burke, Virginia King.(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
447 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 421 Objections (non motion) to Plaintiffs' Counterdesignations to Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Deposition Designations. Related document: 421 Objections (non motion).(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
448 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 426 Proposed Voir Dire. Related document: 426 Proposed Voir Dire filed by New Prime, Inc..(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
449 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 428 Proposed Jury Instructions, 429 Proposed Jury Instructions, 427 Proposed Jury Instructions. Related document: 428 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Abel Joseph Lormand, 429 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Samuel Turner, 427 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by New Prime, Inc..(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 08/31/2003)
450 NOTICE of filing by New Prime, Inc. of Notice of Identification of Corporate Representative (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
451 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Abel Joseph Lormand Objections of Defendants lormand and Turner to Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Instructions. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
452 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by Abel Joseph Lormand Objections of Defendants Lormand and Turner to Plaintiffs' Proposed Voir Dire. (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
453 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Plaintiffs' Objections to New Prime's Proposed Voir and Jury Instructions (Stith,

41 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

09/02/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003 09/04/2003
09/04/2003 09/04/2003 09/05/2003
09/08/2003 09/08/2003 09/09/2003 09/10/2003

Rebecca) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
454 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 427 Proposed Jury Instructions. Related document: 427 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by New Prime, Inc..(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
455 OBJECTIONS (non motions) Supplemental Objections and Counter-Designations to Plaintiffs' Amended Deposition Designations. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
456 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST - Amended Trial Exhibit Index by New Prime, Inc... (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
457 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST with Admissions, Business Records and Auth. by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King.. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
458 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by New Prime, Inc. Supplemental Proposed Limiting Instruction. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
459 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST Amended/Corrected by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King.. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
460 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Objections to Proposed Jury Instructions 454, Proposed Exhibit List with Admissions 457 and Proposed Exhibit List Amended/Corrected 459 (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
461 OBJECTIONS (non motions) re 458 Proposed Jury Instructions. Related document: 458 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by New Prime, Inc..(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
462 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision regarding Objections to Proposed Jury Instructions filed by New Prime, Inc. (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
463 ORDER sustaining in part and overruling in part Defendant New Prime's objections and counter-designations to Plaintiffs' amended deposition designations signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 09/05/2003. (Kitsmiller, Julia) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
464 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY SELECTION, VOIR DIRE and JURY TRIAL - Day 1 held on 9/8/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
465 JURY LIST for civil trial. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
466 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY TRIAL Day 2 held on 9/9/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
467 TRIAL BRIEF Defendant New Prime's Bench Brief in Support of its Request to Exclude Hearsay Statements Plaintiffs May Have Made About the Alleged Harassment to Family, Friends, and Acquaintances by New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 09/10/2003)

42 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

09/10/2003 09/11/2003 09/12/2003 09/15/2003 09/16/2003 09/17/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003

468 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY TRIAL Day 3 held on 9/10/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
469 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY TRIAL Day 4 held on 9/11/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
470 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY TRIAL Day 5 held on 9/12/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
471 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY TRIAL Day 6 held on 9/15/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
472 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY TRIAL Day 7 held on 9/16/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
473 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY TRIAL Day 8 held on 9/17/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
474 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY TRIAL Day 9 held on 9/18/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
475 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law at the close of pltfs' evidence on claims of Willa Burke and EEOC relating to Willa Burke filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
476 SUGGESTIONS in support re 475 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law at the close of pltfs' evidence on claims of Willa Burke filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)475) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
477 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law at the close of pltfs' evidence on claims of Virginia King and claims of EEOC on behalf of Virginia King filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
478 SUGGESTIONS in support re 477 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law at close of pltfs' evidence on claims of Virginia King filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)477) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
479 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law at close of pltfs' evidence on claims of Cynthia Huffman and claims of EEOC relating to Cynthia Huffman filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
480 SUGGESTIONS in support re 479 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law on claims of Cynthia Huffman filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)479) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/18/2003)

43 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

09/18/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003
09/26/2003 09/26/2003
10/03/2003
10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003

481 MOTION for directed verdict on Huffman's claim for false imprisonment at the close of pltf's case filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/19/2003)
482 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ortrie D. Smith : JURY TRIAL Day 10 completed on 9/19/2003. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
483 JURY NOTES. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
484 EXHIBIT INDEX by Willa Burke, Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
485 EXHIBIT INDEX by New Prime, Inc. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
486 JURY INSTRUCTIONS given by Court. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
487 JURY INSTRUCTIONS tendered by dfts Lormand and Turner and refused by Court. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
488 JURY VERDICTS A through J. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
489 JURY VERDICT C (amended). (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
490 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered finding in favor of plaintiffs Cynthia Huffman and EEOC against New Prime for $5,000.00 actual and $80,000.00 punitive damages; and in favor of plaintiff Cynthia Huffman and against defendant Abel Lormand for $1.00 actual and $10,000.00 punitive damages; on all other claims, judgment entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
491 NOTICE of filing by Cynthia Huffman Plaintiff's Suggestions in Support of the Jury's Verdict (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
492 PROPOSED BILL OF COSTS by Cynthia Huffman.Objections to Bill of Costs due by 10/14/2003 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Brown, Roger) Paper copy of exhibits rec'd in Clerk's Office on 9/30/2003 (Elayer, Glenda). (Entered: 09/26/2003)
493 MOTION for attorney fees filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2003 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10)(Brown, Roger) Modified on 10/7/2003 exhibits received in clerk's office (Howard, Linda). (Entered: 10/03/2003)
494 MOTION for order Additur filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2003 (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
495 MOTION for new trial Burke v. Turner filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2003 (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
496 MOTION for new trial Under Rule 59(a) filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2003 (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/03/2003)

44 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003
10/03/2003
10/03/2003 10/03/2003

497 PROPOSED BILL OF COSTS by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.Objections to Bill of Costs due by 10/20/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Taylor, Andrea) Modified on 10/3/2003 to reflect exhibits received in Clerk's Office. (Honeycutt, Cassaundra). (Entered: 10/03/2003)
498 MOTION for permanent injunction filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2003 (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
499 SUGGESTIONS in support re 498 MOTION for permanent injunction filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Related document(s)498) (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
500 MOTION for new trial filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Stith Verified Statement)(Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
501 MOTION for leave to file excess pages filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2003 (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
502 SUGGESTIONS in support re 500 MOTION for new trial filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Related document(s)500) (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
503 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law Regarding the Submission of Punitive Damages on Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Claims and the Claims of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Relating to Huffman Or, In the Alternative, For Reduction of the Punitive Damage Award filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
504 SUGGESTIONS in support re 503 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law Regarding the Submission of Punitive Damages on Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Claims and the Claims of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Relating to Huffman Or, In the Alternative, For Reduction o filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s)503) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
505 MOTION to alter judgment Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law or In The Alternative Motion For New Trial filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Abel Joseph Lormand Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2003 (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
506 SUGGESTIONS in support re 505 MOTION to alter judgment Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law or In The Alternative Motion For New Trial Suggestions In Support Of Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Or In The Alternative Motion For New Trial filed by Kendall Ray McPhail on behalf of Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand. (Related document(s)505) (McPhail, Kendall) (Entered: 10/03/2003)

45 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

10/06/2003 10/06/2003 10/09/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/15/2003
10/15/2003 10/16/2003 10/16/2003
10/17/2003
10/20/2003 10/20/2003

507 ORDER granting 501Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file excess pages. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/06/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
508 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Virginia King re 500 MOTION for new trial (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
509 MOTION for bill of costs filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/24/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
***Remark: Notice regarding exhibit attachment to document #509 received in paper by court (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
510 MOTION for extension of time to file opposition and objections to Bill of Costs filed by Cynthia Huffman filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/29/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
511 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply to Defendant New Prime's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding Punitive Damages filed by Rebecca S. Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/30/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
512 ORDER granting 510 motion for extension of time for New Prime, Inc. to file objections to Bill of Costs on or before 10/20/2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/15/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
513 ORDER granting 511 motion for extension of time to file response re to Defendant New Prime's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding Punitive Damages, 503 Suggestions in opposition due by 10/24/2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/16/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
514 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 503 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law Regarding the Submission of Punitive Damages on Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Claims and the Claims of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Relating to Huffman Or, In the Alternative, For Reduction o (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
515 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 498 MOTION for permanent injunction, 500 MOTION for new trial, 494 MOTION for order Additur, 496 MOTION for new trial Under Rule 59(a) filed by Monica Marie Fanning on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/3/2003 (Related document(s)498, 500, 494, 496) (Fanning, Monica) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
516 ORDER granting 515 motion for extension of time to file response. Defendant shall file opposition to motions on or before 10/24/2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/20/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
517 MOTION for extension of time (Unopposed) filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/4/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/20/2003)

46 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

10/21/2003 10/23/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003
10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003

518 ORDER granting 517 Defendant motion for extension of time to file opposition on or before 10/24/2003 to Bill of Costs and Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/21/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
519 MOTION for extension of time to File Objections to Defendant's Bill of Costs filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/7/2003 (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
520 MOTION for leave to file UnOpposed Out of Time filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/10/2003 (Attachments: # 1)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
521 ORDER granting 519 Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file objections to Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Bill of Costs. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/24/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
522 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Virginia King re 509 MOTION for bill of costs (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
523 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 505 MOTION to alter judgment Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law or In The Alternative Motion For New Trial, 520 MOTION for leave to file UnOpposed Out of Time filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman. Reply Suggestions due by 11/10/2003. (Related document(s)505, 520) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
524 ORDER granting 520Plaintiff motion for leave to file response out of time to Defendant Lormand's motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, motion for new trial on or before 10/28/2003.. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/24/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
525 MOTION for leave to file excess pages filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/10/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
526 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 496 MOTION for new trial Under Rule 59(a) filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 11/10/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s)496) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
527 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 496 MOTION for new trial Under Rule 59(a) filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 11/10/2003. (Related document(s)496) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
528 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 494 MOTION for order Additur filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 11/10/2003. (Related document(s)494) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
529 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 498 MOTION for permanent injunction filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 11/10/2003. (Related document(s)498) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/24/2003)

47 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003
10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/27/2003
10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/29/2003 10/29/2003 11/06/2003

530 MOTION for leave to file excess pages filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/10/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
531 OBJECTION to 497 bill of costs filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)497) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
532 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 503 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law Regarding the Submission of Punitive Damages on Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Claims and the Claims of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Relating to Huffman Or, In the Alternative, For Reduction o f Punitive Damages filed by Rebecca S. Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. Reply Suggestions due by 11/10/2003. (Related document(s)503) (Stith, Rebecca) Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment added on 10/28/2003 (Henson, Tanya). **Received 1 hard copy of exhibits** (Entered: 10/24/2003)
533 OBJECTION to 492 bill of costs and Petition for Attorneys' Fees filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s)492) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
534 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 503 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law Regarding the Submission of Punitive Damages on Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Claims and the Claims of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Relating to Huffman Or, In the Alternative, For Reduction o (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
535 ORDER granting 525Defendant New Prime's motion for leave to file response brief to Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial, in excess of fifteen pages, granting 530Defendant New Prime's motion for leave to file response brief to Plaintiff Huffman's petition for attorneys' fees and bill of costs in excess of fifteen pages on or before 10/29/2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/27/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable "forwarding time expired". Mail sent to Arthur E. Curtis (Related document(s)516) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable "forwarding time expired". Mail sent to Arthur E. Curtis (Related document(s)518) (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
536 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 509 MOTION for bill of costs filed by Andrea Taylor on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. Reply Suggestions due by 11/13/2003. (Related document(s)509) (Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 10/29/2003)
537 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 509 MOTION for bill of costs (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 10/29/2003)
538 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply to Defendant New Prime's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for a New Trial filed by Rebecca S. Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in

48 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

11/06/2003 11/07/2003 11/07/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/11/2003 11/11/2003
11/13/2003 11/14/2003 11/17/2003 11/17/2003

opposition/response due by 11/21/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
539 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply to Defendant New Prime's Opposition to the EEOC's Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Rebecca S. Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/21/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
540 ORDER granting 538 motion for extension of time to file reply, granting 539 motion for extension of time to file reply. Plaintiffs Reply Suggestions due by 11/17/2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 11/07/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
541 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 498 MOTION for permanent injunction, 500 MOTION for new trial, 495 MOTION for new trial Burke v. Turner, 496 MOTION for new trial Under Rule 59(a) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
542 SUGGESTIONS in support re 493 MOTION for attorney fees filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman. (Related document(s)493) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
543 NOTICE of filing by Cynthia Huffman Request for Injunctive Relief (Attachments: # 1)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
544 MOTION for order for Leave to File Reply Brief One Day Out of Time Unopposed filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/26/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 11/11/2003)
545 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 503 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law Regarding the Submission of Punitive Damages on Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Claims and the Claims of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Relating to Huffman Or, In the Alternative, For Reduction o filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. (Related document(s)503) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 11/11/2003)
546 MOTION for extension of time - Unopposed filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/28/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
547 ORDER (1)granting Defendant New Prime's unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief Out of Time, and (2) granting Defendant New Prime's unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 544 546. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 11/14/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 11/14/2003)
548 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 500 MOTION for new trial Plaintiffs' Reply to New Prime's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 59(e) Motion for a New Trial filed by Rebecca S. Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Related document(s)500) (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
549 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 498 MOTION for permanent injunction EEOC's Reply to New Prime's Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Rebecca S. Stith on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Related document(s)498) (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/17/2003)

49 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

11/18/2003 11/20/2003 11/21/2003 11/25/2003 11/26/2003 11/26/2003 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 12/02/2003 12/02/2003
12/10/2003

550 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 498 MOTION for permanent injunction, 500 MOTION for new trial (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/18/2003)
551 Reply to the Proposed Bill of Costs by New Prime, Inc. Defendant Prime's Reply to Plaintiffs' Objections to Prime's Bill of Costs (Sullivan, James) Modified on 11/21/2003 to correct pleading title information (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 11/20/2003)
552 MOTION to amend/correct 492 Proposed Bill of Costs Bill of Costs Out of Time filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/8/2003 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Related document(s)492) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
553 MOTION for extension of time to File Opposition to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Request for Injunctive Relief (unopposed) filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/10/2003 (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
554 MOTION for hearing Regarding Plainitff Huffman's Petition for Attorney's Fees, Plaintiff Huffman's Request for Injunctive Relief and Plaintiffs Burke and King's Motion for a New Trial filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/11/2003 (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
555 MOTION for hearing on EEOC's Motion for Permanent Injunction (#498) and Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial (#500) filed by Rebecca S. Stith on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commision Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/11/2003 (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
556 ORDER granting 553 motion for extension of time to file opposition to Motion for Injunctive Relief on or before 12/01/2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/01/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
557 NOTICE of filing by New Prime, Inc. re 543 Notice of filing Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Request for Injunctive Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
558 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 552 MOTION to amend/correct 492 Proposed Bill of Costs Bill of Costs Out of Time filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 12/17/2003. (Related document(s)552) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
559 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 554 MOTION for hearing Regarding Plainitff Huffman's Petition for Attorney's Fees, Plaintiff Huffman's Request for Injunctive Relief and Plaintiffs Burke and King's Motion for a New Trial, 555 MOTION for hearing on EEOC's Motion for Permanent Injunction (#498) and Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial (#500) filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 12/17/2003. (Related document(s)554, 555) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
560 MOTION to clarify Plaintiff Huffman's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Cynthia Huffman Suggestions in

50 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

12/12/2003 12/12/2003 12/12/2003
12/17/2003
12/22/2003 12/22/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003 01/02/2004 01/02/2004

opposition/response due by 12/26/2003 (Attachments: # 1)(Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
561 ORDER denying 494Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Motion for Additur. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/12/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
562 ORDER denying 505Defendant Abel Lormand's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/12/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
563 ORDER denying 503 Defendant Prime's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding the Submission of Punitive Damages on Plaintiff Huffman's Claims and the Claims of the EECO Relating to Huffman or, in the Alternative, for Reduction of Punitive Damages Award. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/12/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
564 ORDER (1) denying Plaintiff Burke's Motion for New Trial, (2) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs Burke and King's Moiton for a New Trial Under Rule 59(1), and (3) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff EEOC's Rule 59(a) Motion for a New Trial 495 496 500. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/17/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
565 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 560 MOTION to clarify Plaintiff Huffman's Attorneys' Fees and Expenses filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 1/6/2004. (Related document(s)560) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
566 ORDER granting 552 motion to amend bill of costs, granting 560 motion to file second supplemental response to Defendant objections to attorneys' fees and expenses. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/22/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
567 SUGGESTIONS in support re 493 MOTION for attorney fees filed by Roger G Brown on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman. (Related document(s)493) (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
568 NOTICE of filing by Cynthia Huffman re 492 Proposed Bill of Costs (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
569 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 498 Plaintiff EEOC's Moiton for Injunctive Relief denying as moot 555 motion for hearing Plaintiff EEOC; Plaintiff Huffman's Request for Injunctive Relief is denied. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/23/2003. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
570 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 552 MOTION to amend/correct 492 Proposed Bill of Costs Bill of Costs Out of Time filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of Defendant New Prime, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 1/20/2004. (Related document(s)552) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/02/2004)
571 NOTICE of filing by New Prime, Inc. of Its Opposition to Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman's Second Supplemental Response to Defendant New Prime, Inc.'s Objections to Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 01/02/2004)

51 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

01/12/2004 01/23/2004
01/23/2004 01/23/2004
01/23/2004 01/23/2004 01/23/2004
02/05/2004
02/05/2004 02/06/2004 02/17/2004 02/26/2004 03/09/2004
03/19/2004

572 NOTICE of change of address by JoAnne Spears Jackson (Jackson, JoAnne) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
573 ORDER entering Final Judgment with respect to Plaintiff Huffman's claims and the EEOC's claims related thereto, Plaintiff Burke's claims and the EEOC's claims related thereto, and Plaintiff Virginia King's claim of constructive discharge and the EEOC's claim related thereto. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 01/23/2004. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
574 CLERK JUDGMENT. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
575 AMENDED ORDER entering Final Judgment with respect to Plaintiff Huffman's claims and the EEOC's claims related thereto, Plaintiff Burke's Claims and the EEOC's claims related thereto, and Plaintiff Virginia King's claim of constructive discharge and the EEOC's claim related thereto. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 01/23/2004. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
576 ORDER severing Plaintiff Willa Burke's claim of sexual harassment and the EEOC's claim related. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 01/23/2004. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
577 AMENDED Clerk Judgment. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
578 ORDER vacating order severing Plaintiff Willa Burke's claim (Doc. # 576), and ORDER severing Plaintiff Virginia King's claim of sexual harassment and the EEOC's claim related thereto. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 1/23/04. (Kitsmiller, Julia) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Willa Burke (Brown, Roger) Modified on 2/5/2004 - DOCUMENT DELETED and will be refiled - should have been docketed as Notice of Appeal (Russel, Jeri). (Entered: 02/05/2004)
579 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Willa Burke. Filing fee $ 255, receipt number 209916. (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
TRANSMISSION of Notice of Appeal and docket sheet to US Court of Appeals re 579 Notice of Appeal via e-mail (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
580 US COURT OF APPEALS CASE NUMBER 04-1339 for 579 Notice of Appeal filed by Willa Burke. (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
581 ORDER granting in part 493 motion for attorney fees, finding as moot 554 motion for hearing signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 2/26/04. (Kitsmiller, Julia) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
582 ORDER (1) granting in part and denying in part Huffman's Amended Bill of Costs, (2) granting in part and denying in part EEOC's Bill of Costs, and (3) granting in part and denying in part Prime's Bill of Costs. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 03/09/2004. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
583 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. Filing fee waived. (Taylor, Andrea) Modified docket text on 3/22/2004 (Elayer, Glenda). (Entered: 03/19/2004)

52 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

03/22/2004 03/24/2004 04/02/2004 04/02/2004 04/02/2004 04/05/2004 04/12/2004 05/24/2004
06/22/2004
06/22/2004 06/22/2004 06/22/2004 06/22/2004

TRANSMISSION of NOA Supplement, Notice of Appeal and docket sheet to US Court of Appeals via e-mail re 583 Notice of Appeal (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
584 US COURT OF APPEALS CASE NUMBER 04-1686 for 583 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision (consolidated with 8th Cir No. 04-1339). (Elayer, Glenda) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
***Remark - Ntc of Cross-Appeal filed on 4/1/04 by James Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. was deleted - once the filing fee has been paid the party will refile the cross-appeal under the correct event (Howard, Linda) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
585 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL by New Prime, Inc.. Filing fee $ 255, receipt number 216793. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt)(Sullivan, James) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
RECEIPT number 216793 in the amount of $255 issued to Shughart, Thompson & Kilroy for Notice of Appeal. (McDowell, Shelly) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
TRANSMISSION of Notice of Cross-Appeal and docket sheet to US Court of Appeals, via e-mail, re 585 Notice of Cross Appeal. (Polodna, Christy) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
586 US COURT OF APPEALS CASE NUMBER 04-1817 for 585 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by New Prime, Inc.. (Howard, Linda) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
587 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Volumes 1 through 10 held on 09-08-03 before Judge Ortrie Smith. Court Reporter: Cynthia Johnson. This is a text entry only no document is attached. The transcript is available for review in the Clerk's Office. Please contact the court reporter listed above for copies. (McDowell, Shelly) Modified on 05/25/04 to include volumes numbers.(McDowell, Shelly) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
588 MOTION to vacate 354 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Hearing,,, filed by James C. Sullivan on behalf of New Prime, Inc. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/7/2004 (Related document(s)354) (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
589 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Retain Jurisdiction by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(Taylor, Andrea) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
590 ORDER granting 588Defendant's Motion to Vacate Order of July 24, 2003. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 06/22/2004. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
591 ORDER granting joint motion to approve settlement agreement and retain jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 06/22/2004. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
***Remark: Notice of exhibit attachment to Document #589 received in paper by court (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 06/23/2004)

53 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri - Docket Report

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?116607942209917-L_...

06/28/2004
07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/02/2004 07/06/2004

592 USCA Judgment and Mandate as to585 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by New Prime, Inc., 579 Notice of Appeal filed by Willa Burke, 583 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision: Joint motion for dismissal is granted; the appeals are dismissed. Mandate issued: 06/23/2004. (Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
593 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT and Stipulation of Dismissal by New Prime, Inc.. (Sullivan, James) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
594 NOTICE of Endorsement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision of Satisfaction of Judgment and Stipulation of Dismissal (Stith, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
595 NOTICE of Endorsement by Willa Burke, Cynthia Huffman, Virginia King re 593 Satisfaction of Judgment (Brown, Roger) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
596 ORDER dismissing case with prejudice pursuant to parties' Satifaction of Judgment and Stipulation ofDismissal. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 07/06/2004. (Will-Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/06/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/14/2007 14:14:43

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

eeoc 6:01-cv-03144-ODS 2.40

54 of 54

6/14/2007 2:16 PM

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN,

)

WILLA BURKE, AND

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff/Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a/ PRIME, INC., )

ABEL JOSEPH LORMAND,

)

)

and

)

)

SAMUEL TURNER

)

Server at:

)

2604 Joneboro Ave.

)

Dallas, Texas 75228

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-3-ECF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR WILLA BURKE

COMES NOW Plaintiff-Intervenor Willa Burke, by and through her undersigned attorneys, and for her cause of action against the Defendants states as follows:
PARTIES 1. Plaintiff-Intervenor Willa Burkes is a resident of the State of Missouri, residing in Arbyrd, Dunklin County, Missouri. She has the capacity to sue. 2. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the federal agency charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, brought the instant action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). It has the capacity to sue.

3. Plaintiff-Intervenor Cynthia Huffman intervened in this action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). She has the capacity to sue.
4. Defendant New Prime, Inc. (hereafter "Prime") is a corporation of the State of Nebraska, with its principal place of business located at 2740 North Mayfair, Springfield, Missouri 65808. Defendant Prime is also registered with the State of Missouri under the name Prime, Inc. and conducts business in the State of Missouri under that name. It has the capacity to be sued.
5. Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand is a resident of the State of Louisiana. He has the capacity to be sued.
6. Defendant Sam Turner (“Turner”) is a resident of the State of Texas. He has the capacity to be sued.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke brings her cause of action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)("Title VII"), and § 102(d) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. Plaintiff Burke has the statutory right to intervene in the instant action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 24(a)(1), which grants the right to intervene where a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene. Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke brings her state claims pursuant to Chapter 213 Revised Statutes of Missouri, hereinafter referred to as the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke’s pendent state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

8. Defendant Prime is an employer engaged within the meaning of Title VII, § 701(b), (g) and (h), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b),(g) and (h), and the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Chapter 213 R.S. Mo.
9. Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke filed her charge of discrimination jointly with the EEOC and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”) on or about May 3, 2000.
10. Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke was employed in the State of Missouri by Defendant Prime. 11. Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke received her Right to Sue Letter from MCHR on or about November 16, 2001. See Exhibit 1. 12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendant Prime maintains its principal office in this judicial district, and in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke’s claims occurred in this judicial district.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 15. Defendant Prime, at all relevant times, operated Prime, Inc. in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, and employed Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke as a truck driver-trainee. 16. Defendant Turner was, at all relevant times, authorized by Defendant Prime to be a truck driver-trainer and was assigned by Defendant Prime to train and supervise of PlaintiffIntervenor Burke. 17. Beginning on or about December 2, 1999, and continuing through December 6, 1999, Defendant Turner sexually assaulted Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke, and restrained PlaintiffIntervenor Burke against her will by not allowing her to move about freely through his constant vigil and attention. 18. Beginning on or about December 2, 1999, and continuing through December 6,

1999, Defendant Prime engaged in acts of sexual harassment directed at Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke, including numerous sexually-oriented comments and unwanted physical touchings.
19. These incidents of unwelcome sexual harassment included but were not limited to Defendant Turner requiring Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke to remove her clothing and to engage in unwanted sexual intercourse with Defendant Turner on or about December 2, 1999 and on or about December 6.
20. The unlawful conduct alleged above was unwelcome and offensive to PlaintiffIntervenor Burke and would be found by a reasonable person to be unwelcome and offensive.
21. The unlawful conduct alleged above was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile working environment for Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke which altered the terms or conditions of her employment, and Defendant Prime failed to take adequate corrective or remedial action in response to such unlawful conduct, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), and the MHRA.
22. Defendant Prime constructively discharged Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke on or about December 6, 1999 by creating intolerable working conditions for Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), and the MHRA.
23. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, humiliation, prolonged incapacity to work, and inconvenience.
24. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke has incurred and continues to incur counseling and medical expenses.
COUNTS I AND II TITLE VII - SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

DEFENDANT PRIME 25. Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 26. By the unlawful acts alleged above, Defendant Prime has violated Title VII. 27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Prime’s unlawful acts, PlaintiffIntervenor Burke has sustained and is reasonably likely to sustain in the future irreparable harm in the form of pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, medical and counseling expenses, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. 28. Defendant Prime acted with malice or with reckless indifference to PlaintiffIntervenor Burke’s right not to be discriminated against, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant Prime and to deter the Defendant Prime and others from like conduct. Such malice or reckless indifference is part of a pattern of conduct engaged in by Defendant Prime on prior, similar occasions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to Title VII in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order: a. Declaring all acts in violation of Title VII; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant Prime from continued violations of Title VII; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect PlaintiffIntervenor Burke’s employment opportunities; d. Requiring Defendant Prime to compensate, reimburse, and make whole Plaintiff-

Intervenor Burke for the full value of all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages she has sustained in the past, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential loss of reputation, and all consequent damages;
COUNTS III and IV MHRA – SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE
DEFENDANT PRIME 29. Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 30. By the unlawful acts alleged above, Defendant Prime has violated the Missouri Human Rights Act. 31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Prime’s unlawful acts, PlaintiffIntervenor Burke has sustained and is reasonably likely to sustain in the future irreparable harm in the form of pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, los of reputation, medical and counseling expenses, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. 32. Defendant Prime acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke’s right not to be discriminated against, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant Prime and to deter the Defendant Prime and others from like conduct. Such malice or reckless indifference is part of a pattern of conduct engaged in by Defendant Prime on prior, similar occasions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to the Missouri Human Rights Act in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order:

a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant Prime from continued violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect PlaintiffIntervenor Burke’s employment opportunities; d. Requiring Defendant Prime to compensate, reimburse, and make whole PlaintiffsIntervenor Burke for the full value of all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages she has sustained in the past, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential loss of reputation, and all consequent damages; e. Awarding Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke punitive damages in such amount as will punish the Defendant Prime and deter the Defendant Prime and others from like conduct in the future; f. Awarding Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and g. Directing Defendant Prime to provide Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke with a letter of apology from Defendant Prime; h. Providing such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V MISSOURI LAW - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
DEFENDANT TURNER 33. Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

34. By the unlawful acts alleged above, Defendant Turner committed assault and battery

against Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke in that:

a. Defendant Turner intentionally engaged in unwanted touching and fondling of

Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke including two sexual assaults;

b. Defendant Turner thereby caused a physical contact with Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke

that was offensive to her;

c. Defendant Turner thereby caused Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke to be in apprehension of

an offensive contact or bodily harm; and

d. Such contact would be offensive to a reasonable person.

35. By the unlawful acts alleged above, Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke has suffered and

will continue to suffer in the future, indignity, disgrace, humiliation and mortification.

36. The conduct of Defendant Turner as alleged herein was outrageous because of his

evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke, making him

subject to an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant Turner and to deter the

Defendant Turner and others from like conduct in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor

and against Defendant Turner and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke compensatory damages in such amount as to

fairly and reasonably compensate for the damages she has suffered as a result of the conduct of the

Defendant Turner;

b. Awarding Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke punitive damages in such sum as is appropriate

to punish Defendant turner and to deter Defendant Turner and others from like conduct in the future;

c. Awarding Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and

reasonable attorneys’ fees; and d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VI

FALSE IMPRISONMENT DEFENDANT TURNER

37. Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 of

this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

38. By the unlawful acts alleged above, Defendant Turner committed false

imprisonment against Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke in Defendant Turner unlawfully restrained

Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke against her will by not allowing her to move about freely without his

constant vigil and attention.

39. As a result of the actions of Defendant Turner as alleged herein, Plaintiff-

Intervenor Burke has suffered, and will continue to suffer in the future, embarrassment, disgrace,

humiliation, injury to her feelings and reputation and mental suffering.

40. The conduct of Defendant Turner as alleged herein was outrageous because of his

evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke, making him subject

to an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant Turner and to deter the Defendant

Turner and others from like conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke prays that this Court enter a judgment in her

favor and against Defendant Turner and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke compensatory damages in such amount as to

fairly and reasonably compensate for the damages she has suffered as a result of the conduct of

the Defendant Turner;

b. Awarding Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke punitive damages in such sum as is appropriate to punish Defendant turner and to deter Defendant Turner and others from like conduct in the future;
c. Awarding Plaintiff-Intervenor Burke the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted, ROGER G. BROWN AND ASSOCIATES
By /s/Roger G. Brown Roger G. Brown (#29055) 216 East McCarty Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-2960 Telephone - (573) 634-8501 Telecopy - (573) 634-7679 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFINTERVENOR WILLA BURKE

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN and

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a/ PRIME, INC. )

and ABEL JOSEPH LORMAND

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-ODS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR CYNTHIA HUFFMAN

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned attorneys, and for her cause

of action against the Defendants state as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Cynthia Huffman is a resident of the State of Mississippi, residing in Petal,

Forrest County, Mississippi. She has the capacity to sue.

2. Defendant New Prime, Inc. (hereafter “Prime”) is a corporation of the State of

Nebraska with its principal place of business located at 2740 North Mayfair, Springfield, Missouri

65808. Defendant Prime is also registered with the State of Missouri under the name Prime, Inc.

and conducts business in the State of Missouri under that name. It has the capacity to be sued.

3. Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand (hereafter “Lormand”) is a resident of the State

of Louisiana. He has the capacity to be sued.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1

4. Plaintiff brings her cause of action against Defendant Prime under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216 and Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), and Section 102 (d) of the Civil rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. This Court therefore has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiff’s claims arising under State law are so related to the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy, and this Court therefore has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
5. Defendant Prime is an employer pursuant to the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216 and Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), and Section 102 (d) of the Civil rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a and the Missouri Human Rights Act, Chapter 213 R.S. Mo. (MHRA)
6. Plaintiff filed her Complaint of Discrimination jointly with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights on June 16, 2000.
7. Plaintiff received her Right to Sue Letter from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights on January 9, 2001 (Attached as Exhibit 1). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed their cause under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Plaintiff was given leave to intervene.
8. Plaintiff was employed in the State of Missouri by Defendant Prime. 9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendant Prime maintains its principal office in this judicial district, and in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district.
2

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 10. Defendant Prime operates Prime, Inc. located in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri. 11. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Prime as a CDL truck driver trainee from January 11, 2000 to April 6, 2000. 12. Stan Woodall (hereafter “Woodall”) was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by Defendant Prime as a dispatcher and was, at all times relevant to this action, the direct supervisor of Defendant Abel Joseph Lormand. 13. Defendant Lormand was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by Defendant Prime as a trainer/driver, and was, at all times relevant to this action, the direct supervisor of Plaintiff. 14. Beginning on February 23, 2000, Defendant Prime, through its agents and employees, began engaging in acts of sexual harassment and retaliation aimed at the Plaintiff as more specifically described below. 15. While on a training trip that lasted from February 23, 2000 to March 6, 2000, Defendant Lormand subjected Plaintiff to numerous sexually oriented comments and physical touchings that were unwelcome and offensive and which a reasonable person would find unwelcome and offensive. These incidents include, but are not limited to:
a. Defendant Lormand made a comment to Plaintiff that he would be in various stages of undress while in the truck, which included being naked. Plaintiff immediately objected to Defendant Lormand’s inappropriate comments, but Defendant continued his inappropriate comments and behavior as alleged below.
3

b. Defendant Lormand made a comment to Plaintiff that Defendant Lormand and Plaintiff might like to lie in bed together while Defendant Lormand had no clothes on. This remark was made between ten and twenty times, with each remark being followed by Plaintiff’s expression of discomfort and/or disapproval.
c. Defendant Lormand, while Plaintiff was behind the wheel of the truck, opened Plaintiff’s door, placed his arm around Plaintiff and squeezed her right breast.
d. Defendant Lormand told Plaintiff that he had an orgy movie in the truck, and that after she showered that Plaintiff could come back and lie in bed with Defendant, while he was naked, to watch the movie, and that then he would hook up the Playboy channel.
e. On or about March 2nd, 2000 Defendant Lormand took Plaintiff against her will to his home in Louisiana.
f. On or about March 2nd, 2000, Defendant Lormand tried to force Plaintiff into his home and into his bed.
g. For two days, Defendant Lormand held Plaintiff against her will at his home and refused to take Plaintiff to a hotel per her request, and again tried to force Plaintiff into his home and into his bed.
h. All of the acts of Defendant Lormand as alleged above were performed without Plaintiff’s permission or consent, and over her repeated objections.
16. Defendant Lormand was instructed by Defendant Prime to push Plaintiff during the training trip of February 23, 2000 to March 6, 2000 because she was a female.
17. Prior to February 23, 2000, dispatchers employed by Defendant Prime had refused to work with Defendant Lormand due to Defendant Lormand’s erratic behavior.
4

18. Defendant Prime, through its authorized agent and employee Stan Woodall, was aware of many of the actions of Defendant Lormand as described above, yet failed to take action against Defendant Lormand and failed to take action to assist Plaintiff. These incidents include, but are not limited to the following:
a. After Plaintiff informed Woodall of her fears and concerns with Defendant Lormand, Woodall took no corrective action against Defendant Lormand and took no action to have Plaintiff removed from Defendant Lormand’s truck.
b. Woodall was sent an urgent message on the Qual-Com computer system on or about March 2nd, 2000 by Plaintiff, indicating that she was scared and feared for her life because Defendant Lormand was holding her against her will at his home and would not take her to a safe hotel. Defendant Prime and/or Woodall did not respond.
c. Woodall was contacted at home, by phone, on March 3 rd, 2000 by Plaintiff with regards to her urgent message of March 2nd, 2000. Woodall told Plaintiff that “you will be leaving for Texas in a few hours; can’t you hold on until you get to your next stop.”
19. When Plaintiff discussed Defendant Lormand’s actions with Woodall, she asked Woodall not to reveal her fears to Defendant Lormand until she was safely away from him and his truck. Shortly afterwards, Defendant Lormand confronted Plaintiff and told her that Woodall had informed him of Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant Lormand then began yelling at her and telling her that “she would not get off of the truck when they reach Texas.” that “she was going back to Louisiana with me.”
20. Plaintiff also attempted on two occasions to contact the president of Defendant Prime, Robert E. Low, to inform him of her problems with Defendant Lormand as alleged above.
5

Plaintiff on one occasion left a message with Mr. Low’s secretary and on another occasion left a message on Mr. Low’s voice mail. Plaintiff never received any response to these messages from Mr. Low.
21. Defendant Prime, through its authorized agent and employee Woodall began a series of retaliatory actions against Plaintiff after she discussed Defendant Lormand’s actions with Woodall. These retaliatory actions include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Ignoring Plaintiff’s requests for another trainer. b. Ignoring Plaintiff’s urgent messages to come get her because she was in fear for her safety. c. Not taking Plaintiff’s complaints seriously. d. Refusing to send someone to pick her up and refusing to find a bus station in the area. e. Not assisting Plaintiff with correcting her pay. f. After Plaintiff returned to Prime headquarters, Woodall give a card containing a picture of a nude woman to Plaintiff and made humiliating remarks about Plaintiff “being fun on the road.” 22. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future medically diagnosable emotional distress resulting in symptoms that include, but are not limited to, loss of sleep, nightmares and loss of appetite. 23. Plaintiff has incurred hundreds of dollars in counseling expenses as a result of the actions of Defendants as alleged herein. 24. Defendant Prime promised Plaintiff that she would be paid four-hundred dollars
6

($400) a week during the first 30 days of her training period and five-hundred dollars ($500) a week for the remainder of her training period. Defendant Prime paid Plaintiff much less than the amounts promised.
COUNT I TITLE VII AND MHRA – SEXUAL HARASSMENT
DEFENDANT PRIME 25. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 24 of this Petition into this Count I as though fully set forth herein. 26. Plaintiff was subjected to numerous sexually oriented comments and jokes, was held against her will, and was subjected to physical touching at the hands of her supervisors and co-workers. 27. The sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings as alleged above were unwelcome and offensive and a reasonable person would find them unwelcome and offensive. 28. The sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings as alleged above were based on Plaintiff’s sex. 29. The sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings as alleged above were sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in the Plaintiff’s position would find Plaintiff’s work environment to be hostile or abusive. 30. At the time the sexually oriented comments and jokes and physical touchings alleged above occurred and as a result of such conduct, Plaintiff believed her work environment to be hostile or abusive. 31. Defendant knew or should have known of the sexually oriented comments and
7

jokes and physical touchings alleged above. 32. Defendant failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action to end the
harassment. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and inactions alleged
herein, Plaintiff has sustained and are reasonably certain to sustain in the future, irreparable harm in numerous respects, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, offensive touching, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, personal humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, medical and counseling expenses and potential loss of reputation;
b. Significant mental anguish, loss of sleep, nightmares, loss of appetite, nervousness and suffering;
c. Embarrassment and loss of prestige among her co-workers; and d. Attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuing redress for the wrongs she has suffered at the hands of the Defendant. 34. Defendant acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s right not to be sexually harassed, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order: a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continued violations
8

of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary
to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiff’s employment opportunities;
d. Defendant be required to compensate, reimburse, and make whole Plaintiff for the full value of all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages Plaintiff has sustained in the past, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential loss of reputation, and all consequent damages;
e. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such sum as will punish Defendant and deter the Defendant and others from like conduct;
f. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
g. That Plaintiff be granted a letter of apology from Defendant Prime and for such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II TITLE VII AND MHRA – SEX DISCRIMINATION
DEFENDANT PRIME 35. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 34 of this Petition into this Count II as though fully set forth herein. 36. On information and belief, Plaintiff was treated less favorably than similarly situated male employees with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
9

37. Plaintiff’s sex is a motivating factor in Defendant Prime’s decision to treat her less favorably than similarly situated male employees with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
38. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and inactions alleged herein, Plaintiff has sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, irreparable harm in numerous respects, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, offensive touching, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, personal humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, medical and counseling expenses and potential loss of reputation;
b. Significant mental anguish, loss of sleep, nightmares, loss of appetite, nervousness and suffering;
c. Embarrassment and loss of prestige among her co-workers; and d. Attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuing redress for the wrongs she has suffered at the hands of the Defendant. 39. Defendant acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s right not to be discriminated against, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct. Such malice or reckless indifference is part of a pattern of conduct engaged in by Defendant on prior, similar occasions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order: a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII;
10

b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continued violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Title VII;
c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiff’s employment opportunities;
d. Defendant be required to compensate, reimburse, and make whole Plaintiff for the full value of all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages Plaintiff has sustained in the past, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential loss of reputation, and all consequent damages;
e. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such amount as will punish the Defendant and deter the Defendant and others from like conduct;
f. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
g. That Plaintiff be granted a letter of apology from Defendant Prime and for such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III EQUAL PAY ACT DEFENDANT PRIME 40. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 39 of this Petition into this Count III as though fully set forth herein. 41. On information and belief, Plaintiff has been paid less than male employees in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort,
11

and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. 42. The acts of Defendant Prime in denying equal treatment and equal pay to the
Plaintiff was done knowingly, willingly and intentionally with the action taken by Defendant Prime to deny rights known to be secured to the Plaintiff and for the pecuniary benefit of Defendant Prime, even though such acts are in violation of the law. Such actions taken by Defendant Prime warrant such enhanced recovery as provided under the law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court enter judgment under the Equal Pay Act in her favor against Defendant Prime and that the Court enter the following order:
a. Declaring all acts in violation of the Equal Pay Act; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continued violations of the Equal Pay Act; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiff’s employment opportunities; d. Awarding Plaintiff all back pay differential between what the Plaintiff have received and what similarly situated male employees have received for same and similar work over the same period of time; e. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages as allowed for under the EPA; f. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney’s fees; and g. That Plaintiff be granted a letter of apology from Defendant Prime and for such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
12

COUNT IV FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
DEFENDANT PRIME 43. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 42 of this Petition into this Count IV as though fully set forth herein. 44. Defendant Prime represented to Plaintiff that she would be paid four-hundred dollars ($400) a week during the first week of her training and five-hundred dollars ($500) a week for the remainder of her training, intending that Plaintiff rely on such representation in hiring on with the Defendant as a CDL truck driver trainee. 45. Defendant Prime’s representation was false. 46. Defendant Prime knew the representation was false at the time it was made. 47. The representation was material to Plaintiff’s decision to hire on with Defendant Prime as a CDL truck driver trainee. 48. Plaintiff relied on the representation in hiring on with Defendant Prime as a CDL truck driver trainee and in so relying Plaintiff used that degree of care that would have been reasonable in Plaintiff’s situation. 49. Defendant Prime’s false representation directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to the Plaintiff, including but not limited to underpayment of wages and financial hardship due to being on the road without sufficient income to cover expenses. 50. The conduct of Defendant Prime as alleged herein was outrageous because of its evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, making it subject to an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor and against
13

Defendant Prime and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in such amount as to fairly and

reasonably compensate for the damages she has suffered as a result of the conduct of the

Defendant as alleged herein;

b. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such sum as is appropriate to

punish the Defendant and to deter Defendant and others from like conduct in the future;

c. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and

reasonable attorney’s fees; and

d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V ASSAULT AND BATTERY DEFENDANT LORMAND

51. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 50 of this Petition into

this Count V as though fully set forth herein.

52. Defendant Lormand intentionally touched and fondled Plaintiff without her

permission or consent.

53. Defendant Lormand thereby caused a contact with Plaintiff that was offensive to

Plaintiff.

54. Such contact as alleged herein would be offensive to a reasonable person.

55. Defendant Lormand made numerous suggestive comments to Plaintiff indicating

that he desired to have a sexual relationship with her, and he forced Plaintiff to remain against her

will at his home, suggesting on several occasions that they sleep in the same bed.

56. Defendant Lormand thereby caused Plaintiff to be in apprehension of an offensive

14

contact or bodily harm.

57. Such contact as alleged herein would be offensive to a reasonable person.

58. As a result of the actions of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein, Plaintiff has

suffered, and will continue to suffer in the future, indignity, disgrace, humiliation and

mortification.

59. The conduct of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein was outrageous because of

his evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, making him subject to an award of

punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor and against

Defendant Lormand and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in such amount as to fairly and

reasonably compensate for the damages she has suffered as a result of the conduct of the

Defendant as alleged herein;

b. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such sum as is appropriate to

punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like conduct in the future;

c. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and

reasonable attorney’s fees; and

d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VI FALSE IMPRISONMENT DEFENDANT LORMAND

60. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs One through 59 of this Petition into

15

this Count VI as though fully set forth herein.

61. Defendant Lormand unlawfully restrained Plaintiff against her will by taking

Plaintiff to his home, where he forced her to remain for two days.

62. As a result of the actions of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein, Plaintiff

Huffman has suffered, and will continue to suffer in the future, embarrassment, disgrace,

humiliation, injury to her feelings and reputation and mental suffering.

63. The conduct of Defendant Lormand as alleged herein was outrageous because of

his evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, making him subject to an award of

punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter the Defendant and others from like

conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment in her favor and against

Defendant Lormand and enter an order:

a.

Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in such amount as to fairly and

reasonably compensate her for the damages she has suffered as a result of the conduct of the

Defendant as alleged herein;

b. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in such sum as is appropriate to

punish the Defendant and to deter Defendant and others from like conduct in the future;

c. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, prejudgment interest and

reasonable attorney’s fees; and

d. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

16

Respectfully Submitted, ROGER G. BROWN AND ASSOCIATES
By /s/Roger G. Brown Roger G. Brown (#29055) 216 East McCarty Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-2960 Telephone - (573) 634-8501 Telecopy - (573) 634-7679
MONTAGUE, PITTMAN & VARNADO F. Douglas Montague Dustin N. Thomas P.O. Drawer 1975 Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39403-1975 Telephone - (601) 544-1234 Telecopy - (601) 544-1280
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFINTERVENOR CYNTHIA HUFFMAN
17

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA HUFFMAN,

)

WILLA BURKE, VIRGINIA KING and )

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff/Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a/ PRIME, INC., )

ABEL JOSEPH LORMAND, SAMUEL )

TURNER

)

)

and

)

)

KENNETH LITTLEJOHN

)

Served at: 9500 South Heights Road )

Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 )

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-3-ECF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR VIRGINIA KING

COMES NOW Plaintiff- Intervenor Virginia King by and through her undersigned

attorneys, and for her cause of action against the Defendants state the following:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff-Intervenor Virginia King is a resident of the State of Ohio, residing in

Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio. She has the capacity to sue.

2. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the federal agency

charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, brought the instant

action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). It has the capacity to sue.

3. Defendant New Prime, Inc. (hereafter "Prime") is a corporation of the State of Nebraska, with its principal place of business located at 2740 North Mayfair, Springfield, Missouri 65808. Defendant Prime is also registered with the State of Missouri under the name Prime, Inc. and conducts business in the State of Missouri under that name. It has the capacity to be sued.
4. Defendant Kenneth Littlejohn (“Littejohn”) is a resident of the State of Arkansas, residing in Pulaski County. He has the capacity to be sued.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Plaintiff-Intervenor King brings her cause of action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)("Title VII"), and § 102(d) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. Plaintiff King has the statutory right to intervene in the instant action pursuant to § 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 24(a)(1), which grants the right to intervene where a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene. Plaintiff-Intervenor King brings her state claims pursuant to Missouri Tort Law. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s pendent and supplemental state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 6. Defendant Prime is an employer engaged within the meaning of Title VII, § 701(b), (g) and (h), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b),(g) and (h). 7. Plaintiff-Intervenor King filed her charge of discrimination with the EEOC. 8. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was employed in the State of Missouri by Defendant Prime. 9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b) in that Defendant Prime maintains its principal office in this judicial district, and in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s claims occurred in this judicial district.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 10. Plaintiff-Intervenor King incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint as is fully set forth herein. 11. Defendant Prime, at all relevant times, operated Prime, Inc. in Springfield, Greene County, Missouri, and employed Plaintiff-Intervenor King as a truck driver-trainee. 12. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was assigned to Hosea Washington, male trainer, who stated that he “don’t think that women should be driving trucks...” and would not train King what she needed to learn. Plaintiff-Intervenor King requested to be removed from Washington’s truck for failure to be trained. 13. Plaintiff-Intervenor King requested repeatedly to be placed with a female trainer, due to Washington’s comments, prior to being assigned to the male trainer Defendant Littlejohn. 14. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was sexually assaulted, raped and molested at the hands of Defendant Prime’s trainer, Defendant Littlejohn while in his truck. 15. Defendant Littlejohn drove Plaintiff-Intervenor King to a Motel Six in Texas shortly after the sexual assault. 16. Plaintiff-Intervenor King contacted Defendant Prime through dispatcher, Stan Auman, requesting to speak to a female and to be returned to either Springfield or her home via a female trainer or other means of transportation. 17. Defendant Littlejohn requested Defendant Prime to remove Plaintiff-Intervenor

King from Littlejohn’s truck after he sexually assaulted, raped and molested her. 18. Dispatcher Stan Auman refused to contact a female and insisted upon placing
King on a truck with another male trainer. 19. Plaintiff-Intervenor King contacted Defendant Prime to speak to another
dispatcher, however, her call was routed back to Auman. Upon Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s explanation that “men want sexual favors” as the reason why she was requesting to talk to a female dispatcher and only drive with a female instructor, Auman further traumatized King by yelling at her that “...the instructors were outstanding family men and they would not do anything of the sort...”or words to that effect, asserting to her that no female trainers were available and refusing to provide a female trainer to Plaintiff-Intervenor.
20. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was assigned to Gerald Felders, a male trainer, to take her back to Prime’s headquarters in Springfield. King was told by Prime that Felders would be routed directly back to Springfield where he could drop her off. However, Prime falsely represented to Plaintiff-Intervenor that she would be routed directly back to Springfield. Defendant Prime through its dispatch knew that driver Felders was being routed to California before being routed back to Springfield, Missouri.
21. Upon entering Felders’ truck, Plaintiff-Intervenor King was subjected to Felders’ choice to play sexually explicit songs which described sexual assaults on women and other violent acts. King requested Felders’ to turn off the offensive music and was told “this is my truck I will play the music I like...”
22. Plaintiff-Intervenor contacted Defendant Prime and complained to a female dispatcher, Kim Haynes, with regard to the offensive music and her need to get back to Prime or her home immediately.

23. Haynes contacted Felders with regard to his choice of music and asked that he not play such music. Felders later yelled at King for complaining about him to Haynes. Plaintiff was further traumatized by Felders.
24. Plaintiff-Intervenor King removed herself from Felders truck, contacted Defendant Prime through dispatcher Haynes, explained that she feared that she was pregnant or had contracted some disease from Littlejohn, and needed to see a doctor. Haynes finally sent King a bus ticket to return to her home.
25. Plaintiff-Intervenor King demanded to know what if anything had happened to Defendant Littlejohn in terms of discipline by Defendant Prime. Defendant Prime refused to divulge “personal information” to King.
26. Defendant Prime constructively discharged Plaintiff-Intervenor King on or about September 12, 1997 by creating intolerable working conditions for Plaintiff-Intervenor King, as in described herein and in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).
27. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff-Intervenor King has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, humiliation, prolonged incapacity to work, and inconvenience, lost wages to date and lost wages in the future.
28. As a result of the actions alleged above, Plaintiff-Intervenor King has incurred and continues to incur counseling and medical expenses.
COUNTS I AND II TITLE VII AND CHAPTER 214 RSMo. - SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE DEFENDANT PRIME 29. Plaintiff-Intervenor King incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

30. By the unlawful acts alleged above, Defendant Prime has violated Title VII. 31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Prime’s unlawful acts, PlaintiffIntervenor King has sustained and is reasonably likely to sustain in the future irreparable harm in the form of both pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, medical and counseling expenses, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. 32. Defendant Prime acted with malice and with reckless indifference to PlaintiffIntervenor King’s right not to be discriminated against, thus making appropriate an award of punitive damages to punish the Defendant Prime and to deter the Defendant Prime and others from like conduct. Such malice or reckless indifference is part of a pattern of conduct engaged in by Defendant Prime on prior, similar occasions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor King prays that this Court enter judgment pursuant to Title VII in her favor and against Defendant Prime and enter an order:
a. Declaring all acts in violation of Title VII; b. Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant Prime from continued
violations of Title VII; c. Directing Defendant Prime to take such affirmative action as is necessary
to ensure that the effects of these unlawful practices are eliminated and to not continue to affect Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s employment opportunities; d. Requiring Defendant Prime to compensate, reimburse, and make whole Plaintiff-Intervenor King for the full value of all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages she has sustained in the past, and is reasonably

certain to sustain in the future, including, but not limited to, any and all back and front pay and benefits, medical and counseling expenses, offensive touching, embarrassment, humiliation, loss enjoyment of life, potential loss of reputation, and all consequent damages; e. Awarding her attorneys’ fees, costs and all other damages and losses she is entitled to under the law and the facts of this case.
COUNT III INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
DEFENDANT PRIME 33. Plaintiff-Intervenor King restates paragraph 1 - 32 above as if fully restated herein and incorporates them by reference. 34. Defendant Prime was repeatedly contacted by Plaintiff-Intervenor with regard to the acts of the Defendant Littlejohn including his comments, general harassment both sexual and otherwise indicating a need for Plaintiff to be removed from the truck and returned home by Defendant Prime away from this specific trucker. Plaintiff-Intervenor further requested Defendant Prime, through its dispatchers, to specifically assign her to a female trainer and also to return her to Springfield or her home through the use of a female truck driver. At all times, Defendant Prime denied such requests. 35. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that Defendant Littlejohn had a propensity to sexually molest and potentially rape female trainees including Plaintiff-Intervenor King. With such knowledge Defendant Prime negligently assigned Plaintiff-Intervenor King to ride and be trained by Defendant Littlejohn. 36. Being given notice by the Plaintiff-Intervenor of Littlejohn’s conduct during the trip, necessitated immediate action by the Defendant Prime to not only remove her from the truck

but also to make arrangements for her safety. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that Plaintiff-Intervenor King would be subjected to emotional damages by the conduct of Defendant Littlejohn and by the circumstances that would likely occur and that immediate attention necessitated the return of Plaintiff-Intervenor King to her home or to Springfield and the actions taken by Defendant Littlejohn properly addressed. To require her to remain in a hotel, by herself in Texas where she had no means to return home or to provide for herself, exacerbated and increased the emotional damages and trauma caused by Littlejohn’s acts.
37. Defendant Prime knew or should have known that to assign Plaintiff-Intervenor King to Defendant Littlejohn would subject her to severe emotional distress.
38. Defendant knew or should have known that to leave Plaintiff-Intervenor King in the truck and assign as a trainer, Defendant Littlejohn, to the Plaintiff-Intervenor would subject her to a high likelihood of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, molestation, threats and potentially rape. Such acts by the Defendant Prime are negligent and Defendant Prime knew or should have known that both the assignment to Defendant Littlejohn as Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s trainer and leaving her with Defendant Littlejohn for any extended period of time would result in and likely cause emotional harm and trauma to the Plaintiff-Intervenor.
39. After Plaintiff-Intervenor King had been raped by Defendant Littlejohn, the Defendant Prime was then notified by Defendant Littlejohn that he could not work with the Plaintiff and that she should be removed from the truck. Defendant Littlejohn and Defendant Prime, acting together dropped Plaintiff-Intervenor off in a Motel 6 somewhere in the state of Texas without any means for her to return home, return to Springfield, provide for herself, seek medical attention or otherwise be treated or cared for as a result of the injuries that she sustained at the hands of Defendant Littlejohn.

40. Plaintiff-Intervenor King contacted Defendant Prime, informed Prime of Littlejohn’s sexual assault, her condition, the need for her to return to Springfield or her home, to have a female return a call to her to be able to talk to a female as to the things that had happened to her at the hands of Defendant Littlejohn and that she needed appropriate care for her condition. Defendant Prime negligently failed to provide for her any means for medical care or to address the injuries and damages she had sustained, and falsely portrayed to her that she would be immediately returned to Springfield by trucker Felders.
41. Defendant Prime provided transportation indirectly back to Springfield by providing trucker Felders to pick up Plaintiff-Intervenor King. Defendant Prime falsely stated to Plaintiff-Intervenor that Felders would take her directly to Springfield when in fact Defendant Prime routes Felders to the State of California to make a delivery and then return to Springfield.
42. Plaintiff-Intervenor King was further subjected to additional emotional trauma by Defendant’s trucker Felders, by his on going playing and utilization of sexually explicit tapes that included references to abuse of women, including the rape of women, and his general dislike for women based upon his conduct towards her. Such facilitated and increased the emotional trauma to Plaintiff-Intervenor who had just been raped by another of Defendant Prime’s truckers, trainer Littlejohn.
43. Plaintiff-Intervenor King removed herself from Defendant Felders’ truck at the next stop and then once again, called Defendant Prime and informed them that she needed medical care, a bus ticket to return home and that she needed to speak to a woman. At some point in time Plaintiff-Intervenor then informed Kim Haynes, a female dispatcher that Defendant Littejohn had raped her and that she was very concerned about the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases and/or pregnancy and her immediate need for medical care due to being

raped by Littlejohn 44. Defendant Prime took little or no action, and in fact, ultimately only provided her
with a bus ticket back home, and eventually said that she could seek some medical care with regard to addressing her concerns as a result of the rape. The Defendant Prime was negligent in inflicting emotional distress to the Plaintiff-Intervenor after Defendant Littlejohn’s rape of her in the following fashion:
a. Failed to immediately remove her from Littlejohn’s truck and get her back home safely to either Springfield or own home after she informed Defendant Prime of his conduct;
b. Falsely portrayed to her that there was a trucker, Felders, who would treat her with dignity and respect and immediately bring her back to Springfield, when in fact, that was false and then subjected her to further sexual abuse and emotional trauma as described above with no intention of having her immediately return to Springfield. Defendant Prime told Plaintiff-Intervenor that she would be immediately returned to Springfield knowing such representation was false;
c. Defendant Prime failed to address her concerns for her necessary medical care and treatment;
d. Defendant Prime placed her Texas and other locations where she had no means to support herself, provide for herself, get medical care, or return home. All contributing to her emotional state of mind after being raped. Only after numerous phone calls and pleas was she provided a minimal amount of care addressing her emotional and physical concerns.

45. After Defendant Prime learned of Plaintiff-Intervenor King being raped by Defendant Littlejohn, then later subjected to the sexual harassment as described above by Defendant Prime’s trucker Felders and after Defendant Prime knew of Plaintiff-Intervenor King being stranded in West Texas by herself, the Defendant Prime chose a further course of conduct which was intentional and made with the intent to scare, harm and cause emotional injury damages to Plaintiff-Intervenor King. Such acts of Defendant Prime taken against PlaintiffIntervenor King were:
a. Demanding that she reimburse Defendant Prime for cost for her staying in hotels and the cost for returning her to her home;
b. Demanding that she pay $5,000 for the 6 weeks of MTC “training” she received, her bus ticket, and her medical bills she sustained due to the sexually assault, rape and molestation of Defendant Littlejohn. Defendant Prime turned Plaintiff-Intervenor King over to a collection agency and ruined her credit report.
c. Making further demand for various costs incurred due to her needing to be removed from the Littlejohn and Felders’ trucks and clearly cease her training and her returning to her home;
d. Defendant Prime’s intentional deducting from PlaintiffIntervenors’ paycheck the above described costs;
e. Instituting legal actions, service of process and ultimately attempted to garnishing Plaintiff-Intervenor King’s wages for certain of the above described costs and reimbursement of such cost.

46. Such acts by Defendant Prime were taken to intimidate, scare, frighten and to cause such harm to Plaintiff that she would not pursue any causes of actions against the Defendant Prime for the acts of trucker Felders and trucker Littlejohn and more specifically for the cause of action of sexual harassment.
47. The Defendant Prime knew or should have known that the above actions as described in this count by Defendant Prime against Plaintiff would cause her severe emotional harm and injury and in fact such actions were in fact taken by Defendant Prime with the intention to cause such harm.
48. Such acts warrant an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff-Intervenor prays judgment in her favor and against the Defendant Prime on her claim of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress and for an award of damages which will properly value the damages, injuries and losses that she has sustained by the acts of Defendant Prime, for an award of punitive damages and for an award for any and all other damages, losses or injuries that she is entitled to under the law and as supported by the facts.
COUNT IV INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
DEFENDANT LITTLEJOHN
49. Plaintiff-Intervenor King restates paragraph 1 - 48 above as if fully restated herein and incorporates them by reference.
50. Defendant Littlejohn contacted Plaintiff-Intervenor King by phone after leaving her at the Motel 6, to threaten her about telling Defendant Prime about the sexual assault, rape and molestation. Such acts caused further mental and emotional distress.

51. Defendant Littlejohn also stated to King that “Prime said for him to return her to Springfield...” or words to that effect, further traumatizing King. Plaintiff-Intervenor King contacted Defendant Prime to verify such statement.
52. Such acts by Defendant Littlejohn were taken to intimidate, scare, frighten and to cause such harm to Plaintiff-Intervenor that she would not pursue any causes of actions against Defendant Littlejohn and more specifically for the causes of action of sexual harassment, rape and molestation.
53. Defendant Littlejohn knew or should have known that the above actions as described in this count by Defendant Littlejohn against Plaintiff would cause her severe emotional harm and injury and in fact such actions were in fact taken by Defendant Littlejohn with the intention to cause such harm.
54. Such acts warrant an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff-Intervenor prays judgment in her favor and against the Defendant Littlejohn on her claim of intentional or negligent infliction of mental distress and for an award of damages which will properly value the damages, injuries and losses that she has sustained by the acts of Defendant Littlejohn, for an award of punitive damages and for an award for any and all other damages, losses or injuries that she is entitled to under the law and as supported by the facts.
Respectfully Submitted, ROGER G. BROWN AND ASSOCIATES By /s/Roger G. Brown
Roger G. Brown (#29055) 216 East McCarty Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-2960 Telephone - (573) 634-8501 Telecopy - (573) 634-7679 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFINTERVENOR VIRGINIA KING

 
 FY 2003 Office of General Counsel Annual Report

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/03annrpt/index.html

In EEOC v. New Prime, Inc., the EEOC alleged that defendant, one of the nation's largest trucking companies, subjected three female truck drivers to a sexually hostile working environment. One of the female drivers was subjected to sexually offensive comments and touching and unwelcome sexual advances by a male Driver-Trainer while she was training on the road. After she objected to the harassment and asked to get out of the truck, the Driver-Trainer refused to take her to a hotel and instead drove her to his home in rural Louisiana. Following a 10-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for the Commission on its sexual harassment claim, awarding $5,000 in compensatory damages and $80,000 in punitive damages. (The jury also awarded $1 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages on the charging party's state law offensive touching claim against the harasser.) The jury found for defendant on the Commission's claims of harassment for the other two female drivers, but the judge ordered a new trial on one of those claims.

1 of 1

6/14/2007 3:16 PM

 
 04-1686 Summary

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=Cas...

Court Home

Case Search

Calendar

Opinions

Orders/Judgments

Billing History

XML

TXT

Logout

Help

If you view the Full Docket you will be charged for 2 Pages $0.16

General Docket Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Docket #: 04-1686

Docketed: 03/23/2004

Nature of Suit: 1442 Jobs

Termed: 06/23/2004

EEOC, et al v. New Prime, et al

Appeal From: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

Case Type Information: 1) Civil 2) United States as a party 3) null

Originating Court Information: District: 0866-6 : 6:01-cv-3144-ODS Court Reporter: Cynthia M. Johnson, Court Reporter Trial Judge: Ortrie D. Smith, U.S. District Judge Date Filed: 03/28/2001 Date Order/Judgment: 01/23/2004

Date NOA Filed: 03/19/2004

04/06/2004
04/12/2004 04/19/2004 05/13/2004 05/14/2004
05/17/2004

CROSS APPEAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE: Transcript due on 5/17/04 in 04-1817, in 04-1339, in 04-1686 Appendix due on 5/27/04 in 04-1817, in 04-1339, in 04-1686 Aplnt brief due on 5/27/04 in 04-1817, in 04-1339, in 04-1686 Aplee/cr. Aplnt brief due on 6/28/04 in 04-1817, in 04-1339, in 04-1686 Reply brief of aplnt/cr. aplee due on 7/28/04 in 04-1817, in 04-1339, in 04-1686 Reply brf aplee/cr. aplnt due 8/11/04 in 04-1817, in 04-1339, in 04-1686 [04-1817, 04-1339, 04-1686]
APPEARANCE for appellant, attorney John F. Suhre [04-1686] [1756381]
Corporate Disclosure Statement filed. Filed by New Prime in 04-1686, New Prime in 04-1817 FOR CAL.
JOINT MOTION of Appellant in 04-1339, Appellant in 04-1686 for extension of time to file either aplnt's brief or a motion to dismiss or stipulation for dismissal. [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1767471] w/service 5/13/04
ORDER filed:granting joint motion for ext. to file either aplnts brief/motion to dismiss [1767471-1] [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1767474] in 04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817 Appellant is granted an ext. until 6/28/04 in 04-1339, in 04-1686, in 04-1817 Aplee brief due on 7/28/04 in 04-1339, in 04-1686, in 04-1817 .
MOTION of court reporter for extension of time to file transcript until 5/24/04 . [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1768204]

1 of 2

4/5/2008 1:44 PM

04-1686 Summary

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=Cas...

05/18/2004
06/23/2004 06/23/2004 07/01/2004

ORDER filed:granting court reporter motion extension of time to file transcript [1768204-1] [1768205] in 04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817 Transcript due on 5/24/04; Appellant Brief due 6/28/04; joint appendix due on 6/28/04 Aplee/cr. aplnt brief due 7/19/04; Aplnt/cr. aplee reply brief due on 8/9/04; Aplee/cr. aplnt reply brief due on 8/18/04 in 04-1339, in 04-1686, in 04-1817
JOINT MOTION of Appellant in 04-1339, etc, Appellee in 04-1339, etc. to dismiss case [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1780501] w/service
JUDGMENT: granting joint motion to dismiss case [1780501-1] [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1780561] in 04-1817, 04-1686, 04-1817 granting joint motion to dismiss case [1780501-1] [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1780561] in 04-1817 Mandate shall issue forthwith. [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1780561]
RECEIPT for Mandate. [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1784953]

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

04/05/2008 13:44:21

wu0079

Client Code:

Case Summary Search Criteria:

1

Cost:

eeoc 04-1686 0.08

2 of 2

4/5/2008 1:44 PM

 
 04-1817 Summary

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=Cas...

Court Home

Case Search

Calendar

Opinions

Orders/Judgments

Billing History

XML

TXT

Logout

Help

If you view the Full Docket you will be charged for 2 Pages $0.16

General Docket Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Docket #: 04-1817

Docketed: 04/06/2004

Nature of Suit: 1442 Jobs

Termed: 06/23/2004

Willa Burke, et al v. New Prime, Inc., et al

Appeal From: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

Case Type Information: 1) Civil 2) United States as a party 3) null

Originating Court Information: District: 0866-6 : 01-3144-CV-S-ODS Court Reporter: Cynthia M. Johnson, Court Reporter Trial Judge: Ortrie D. Smith, U.S. District Judge Date Filed: 03/28/2001 Date Order/Judgment: 01/23/2004

Date NOA Filed: 04/02/2004

04/08/2004 04/19/2004 04/26/2004 05/13/2004
05/14/2004
05/17/2004 05/18/2004

APPEARANCE for appellant, attorney James C. Sullivan [04-1817] [1755226]
Corporate Disclosure Statement filed. Filed by New Prime in 04-1686, New Prime in 04-1817 FOR CAL.
APPEARANCE for appellee, attorney John F. Suhre [04-1817] [1761723]
JOINT MOTION of Appellant in 04-1339, Appellant in 04-1686 for extension of time to file either aplnt's brief or a motion to dismiss or stipulation for dismissal. [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1767471] w/service 5/13/04
ORDER filed:granting joint motion for ext. to file either aplnts brief/motion to dismiss [1767471-1] [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1767474] in 04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817 Appellant is granted an ext. until 6/28/04 in 04-1339, in 04-1686, in 04-1817 Aplee brief due on 7/28/04 in 04-1339, in 04-1686, in 04-1817 .
MOTION of court reporter for extension of time to file transcript until 5/24/04 . [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1768204]
ORDER filed:granting court reporter motion extension of time to file transcript [1768204-1] [1768205] in 04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817 Transcript due on 5/24/04; Appellant Brief due 6/28/04; joint appendix due on 6/28/04 Aplee/cr. aplnt brief due 7/19/04; Aplnt/cr. aplee reply brief due on 8/9/04; Aplee/cr. aplnt reply brief due on 8/18/04 in 04-1339, in 04-1686, in 04-1817

1 of 2

4/5/2008 1:45 PM

04-1817 Summary

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=Cas...

06/23/2004 06/23/2004
07/01/2004

JOINT MOTION of Appellant in 04-1339, etc, Appellee in 04-1339, etc. to dismiss case [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1780501] w/service
JUDGMENT: granting joint motion to dismiss case [1780501-1] [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1780561] in 04-1817, 04-1686, 04-1817 granting joint motion to dismiss case [1780501-1] [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1780561] in 04-1817 Mandate shall issue forthwith. [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1780561]
RECEIPT for Mandate. [04-1339, 04-1686, 04-1817] [1784953]

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

04/05/2008 13:45:06

wu0079

Client Code:

Case Summary Search Criteria:

1

Cost:

eeoc 04-1817 0.08

2 of 2

4/5/2008 1:45 PM