I
f'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN·DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

v.

Plaintiff,

60,62 03C )

)

)

caseNo.

) HAMILTON COMMUNICATIONS )

JfJDGt: GOTTSCHALL

GROUP, Defendant.

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~

) )

c"tJ.1

) ·M.AmSTRATBJUDGEKi.YS ·c,

0 ""'"

~ 0

_';:'

\ ........

)

DiJr.hFTED \:~' ~ ~2,

NATURE OF THE ACTION AUG 2 8 2003 -;; '%~">

Co,

c">

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 4:tU.S.C.'§
-'

2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of199l, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct

unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Leslie A.

Jones ("Jones"), and a class of female employees who were adversely affected by such practices.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(the "EEOC" or "Commission''), alleges that

Defendant, Hamilton Communications Group ("Defendant''), discriminated against Jones and a

class offemale employees by SUbjecting them to sexual harassment, failing to correct the sexually

hostile work environment, and subjecting them to constructive discharge, in violation ofTitle VII.

The Commission alleges further that Defendant retaliated against Jones after she complained ofthe

sexual harassment by SUbjecting her to different terms and conditions of employment and by

terminating her employment, in violation of Title VII.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The unlawful acts alleged below were committed within thejurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Northern District of illinois.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, EEOC, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofTitle VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State ofIllinois, County of Cook, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e-5(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Jones filed a charge ofdiscrimination with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I), EEOC's representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with Title VII prior to institution ofthe lawsuit but EEOC was unable to secure a conciliation agreement acceptable
2

'-

~II

to the Commission. 8. Since at least October 2001, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment
practices in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). These practices include, but are not limited to, sexually harassing Jones and a class offemale employees, failing to correct the sexually hostile work environment, subjecting them to constructive discharge, and retaliating against Jones after she complained of sexual harassment by subjecting her to different terms and conditions of employment and by terminating her employment.
9. The effect ofthe practices complained ofabove has been to deprive Jones and a class ofsimilarly situated female employees ofequal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraphs 8 and 9 above were intentional.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraphs 8 and 9 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jones and a class of female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for its employees regardless ofsex and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful practices;
3

,"

!"

I ,i!
1\,

:1:.~

C. Order De:ferldaJatlil;I~!~1f,ti81[e VI'hd;le, Leslie A. Jones and a class ofaffected female

i,"
'I

i1i

'

employees by providing apI)rot)~~~e

"
, i

,with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be

:1 I
detennined at trial, and other afli~ijljle

nfes~ i

to eradicate the effects of the unlawful

employment practices;

111111\1 i

D. Order Dej:endlant~~ providing compensation for

:~:\\rho.le:'~~esllie A. Jones and a class of female employees by

employment practices des:cril,ed
,III
E. Order Defendant
providing compensation for 1

and inconVenience, in amounts

F.

Order Defendant :11

described in paragraphs 8 and 9

G. Grant such funlher interest; and

9 above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
~~:~f{h()le ,~ell1ie A. Jones and a class 0 ffemale employees by Tfiil"r... ~'qJa-pecllllliary losses resulting from the unlawful
tal' . , ~ above, inclUding emotional pain, humiliation,
wnllne4;,,,i :!,1,~i ' • ilfjlJuti,~~ .~am,aglls for its malicious and reckless conduct
1~:,Ull()ulI1/J to ~e determined at trial;
deems necessary Md proper in the public
,':! I.'I'

H. AwardtheCwnmiss'l~

JtJlU' TRIAl, DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

.' i I lllllirii ,II Hiil:;'

,
i 4 I

-,...... .• 'I! ~.I _---~-::.==·.·I'-'............_-.._.~__....._____________

ftF"'"

a;",

'. '-

Respectfully submitted,

Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel

James Lee Deputy General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

1801 "L" Street, N.W.

Washingto

050

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 312/353-7259
5

Civil Cover Sheet

Page 1 of2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
'. Civil Cover She"3C 6-. 0. 6· ~ )
This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual IS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. The data is required for the use ofthe Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheel The
JUDGE GOlTSCHALl information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required
by law. This form is authorized for use only in the Northern District ofIllinois.

Plaintiff(s): u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Defendant(s):HAMIL~STRATE JUDGE KEYS
COMMUNICATIONS GROUP

County of Residence:

County of Residence:

Plaintiffs Atty: June Wallace Calhoun

Defendant's Atty:

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

500 W. Madison, Suite 2800

Chicago, IL 60661 312-353-7259

-

II. Basis of Jurisdiction:

1. U.S. Gov't Plaintiff

III. Citizenship of Principal
Partie~ (Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:-N/A Defendant:-N/A
1. Original Proceeding

----".
DO",.." ;
AUG 2 8 2UlJj

V, Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment

practices on the basis of sex.

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action:

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case IS NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

Date: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.govIPUBLIClForrns/autojs44.cfrn

8128103

lP~TED STATES DISTRICT CO~ N6A.THERN DISTRICT OF ILLlNOl~
fu the Matter of
u.s. Equal Employment Opportwrity Commission,
Plaintiff,
v.
Hamilton Communication Group, Defendant.
FoRJUDGE GOTTSCHALL APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY TIlE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S)
Plaintiff, U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSI0!j f '
,.Sf"l RA 1E JUDGB KEYS

Nt J~)Wallace Calhoun

FIRM Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

STREBT ADDRESS 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2800

Cl1YISTATBIZIP Chicago, IL 60661

TBLBPHONB NUMBER312-353-7259

lDBNTIFICATIOHNUMBER (SBB 1TBM4 ON RBVERSBl(]SDC No. 06202058

MEMBER OF TIUAL BAR?

X YES NO

TIUALATIORNEY?

- - - . 1 / YES X NO

FIRM Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

STREBT ADDRESS ADDRBSS500 W. Madiscfti: St., s.ii7e 2800

CITY/STATEIZIP Chicago, IL 60661

-',!

TBLBPHONBNUMBEll312_886_9124

-_.. ,',

..,'-'

... ,
CJ

.C"}

-.

IDBNTlFlCATIONNUMBEll(SBB 1TBM40NREVBRS("E)J ARD~;,O=.,_{:)651l10804

MEMBER Of TRlAL BAR? TRIAL AITORNEY1

C""~ m,,:::)\.A NO

:"'i]

". I

W"'X NO

DPSlGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

-~ 0 NO o

"Equal Empl{yment Opportunity Commission STRE~Rf!SS
500 W. Madison St., Suite 2800 CITYISTATEIZIP Chicago, IL 60661

TBLBPHONB NUMBBR312-353-8551

lDBNTIFlCATIONNUMIIBIl(SBBITBM40NREVBRSBJARDC No. 01187589

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAll?

o YES X NO

TRIAL AITORNBY?

o X YES NO

DESIONATBD AS t.OCAL COUNSEL?

YES 0 NO o

SIGNATURE

NAMB FIRM

HUb " lj lUUJ

STREBT ADDRESS

CITYISTATFJZIP

TELEPHONB NUMBER.

IDENTIPICAnON NUMBER (SBB ITEM 4 ON RBVERSB)

MEMBER OP TRIAL BAR.?

YES

TRIAL ATTORNEY?

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSBL?

YES

o NO 0
o NO 0
o NO 0

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DMSION

"VD

0 J::/

~
c..

~

Oe,-1'3 - ,

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT)

Vl1Gq~JO-i1\t loO.1

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

>StateU...t£J.!isGJ-O, ""8"

) No. 03 C 6062

VICf ..~

Plaintiff, )

Coli'l'

v.

)

)

Judge Joan B. Gottschall

)

LESLIE A. JONES,

)

)

Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys

Intervenor, )

)

HAMILTON COMMUNICATIONS )

GROUP,

)

Jury Trial Demanded

OOChH£D

)
Defendant. )

OCT O'l 2003

INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT Intervenor Leslie A. Jones, by and through her attorneys, BARCLAY & DIXON,

P.C., hereby complains against defendant Hamilton Communications Group ("Hamil-

ton'') as follows:

Nature Of The Action This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

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

§ 1981a, seeking relief for Plaintiff Leslie A. Jones ("Jones"), for discrimination in the

terms and conditions ofher employment based on her sex, female, and in retaliation

against her for opposing unlawful discrimination. Hamilton subjected Jones to sexual

harassment. After she complained ofunlawful discrimination, Hamilton retaliated a-

gainst her by subjecting her to different terms and conditions ofemployment, including

when it discharged her in violation ofTitle VII. Jones brings this complaint to intervene

in the action brought by the U.S. Equal Employment OpportwUty Commission ("EEOC").
Jurisdiction, Venue, and Parties 1. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1337, and 1343. The action is brought pursuant to Sections 706(t)(I) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(I) and (3), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of1991, and 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the actions alleged herein occurred within this district. 3. EEOC is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofTitle VII.
4. At all relevant times, Hamilton was a business organization doing business in Cook COWlty, llIinois. Hamilton has more than fifteen employees, and is an employer
engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofTitle VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
5. Jones was an employee of Hamilton within the meaning of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. §2000e(f).
Administrative Prerequisites 6. Jones filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of
Hamilton's acts of discrimination and more than 30 days prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
7. Jones has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the filing of this action. Factual Allegations
8. In or about March, 2001, Hamilton hired Jones in the position of Branded
2

Science Coordinator. On the date of her termination, Jones held the position of Account Management Coordinator.
9. In or about November, 2001, Hamilton's principal and in individual with supervisory authority over Jones, Jim Lee ("Lee"), made comments to Jones that she looked ''hot.''
1O. Jones complained about Lee's comment, which was unwelcome and unreasonably interfered with her work performance and otherwise created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment for Jones.
11. After lones complained to Hamilton, Hamilton subjected her to different terms and conditions of employment than those enjoyed by other workers.
12. Among other things, Jones was forced to sign a memorandum stating satisfaction with the handling ofher complaint.
13. . Further, Lee, the same individual who made the unwelcomed comments to Jones, began to criticize Jones' work performance and referred to Jones' complaint described herein in doing so.
14. In or about March, 2002, Hamilton tried to coerce Jones into accepting a different position at Hamilton.
15. When Jones declined the position, Hamilton terminated her employment on or about May 13, 2002.
16. Jones alleges that Hamilton discharged her in retaliation for opposing unlawful discrimination.
17. In or about April, 2001, Jones had complained to Lee about comments that
3

he made about a co-worker suggesting that Lee and the co-worker had a sexual encounter.
18. Hamilton's actions deprived Jones of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected her status as an employee because of her sex, female, and in retaliation against her for engaging in a protected activity.
19. Hamilton acted intentionally, and with malice orland reckless indifference to Jones' federally protected rights.
20. As a direct result of Hamilton's unlawful discriminatory practices and retaliation, 10nes has suffered damages, including lost income, lost career opportunities, benefits, healthcare expenses, attorneys' fees and expenses, and severe humiliation and emotional distress.
. WHEREFORE, Intervenor Leslie Jones requests that this honorable Court grant her a trial by jury and the following relief:
A. Enter judgment in Jones' favor and against Hamilton finding that Hamilton unlawfully discriminated against Jones when she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation when she complained about unlawful discrimination, and different terms and conditions ofher employment based upon her sex, female;
B. Enter judgment for Jones and against Hamilton for lost income, including back pay, with prejudgment interest, bonuses, and other fringe benefits;
C. Enter judgment for Jones and against Hamilton in a sum no less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and as determined at trial for
4

compensatory damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and mental

anguish;

D. Punitive damages against Hamilton for intentional discrimination in an

amount as determinoo at trial; .

E. Front pay in an amount as'dl?tennined at trial;

" :J ..,._..

<

F. Reasonableattorneys' fees; expert witness fees, and costs incurred in

" ~"

.,

. z

bringing this action to remedy unlawful discrimination; and

G. Such additional reli~[deemedjust and equitable.
4

Respectfully submitted, LESLIE A. JONES

By:

Lester L. Barclay Crystal L~ Roberts BARCLAY & DIXON, P.C. 39 S. LaSalle Street # 900 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 553-0123 (telephone) (312) 553-0127 (facsimile)

5

 
 Minu~ Ord~r Foml (06197)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of As:sil!ned JUd2f' Of" MSJ;islnlte .Jud~e

Joan 13. Gottschall

Siltil1~ Jud~e if Other thlln As:si~ned .Jud,;:t

CASE NUMBER

03 C 6062

DATE

9(20/2004

CASE TITLE
MOTION:

EEOC VS. Hamilton Communications Group
[In the following box (a) indicate thc party tiling the motioll, c.g., pIaintitl", defendant, 3rd party plilintiff. and (b) state briefly the nl'lture Ilflhl:: motioti beitig pre:o:ented.l

Defendant's Motion 10 Dismiss

DOCKET ENTRY:

(I) o

or Filed motion [usc listing in "Motion" box above.]

(2) o

Urief in support of motion due _ _ _.

(3) o

Answer brief to motion due

Reply to answer brief due___.

(4) o

Ruling/lIearing on ___ set for ___ at ___.

(5)

X

(6) o

(7) o

(8) o

(9) o

Status hearing set for ]O/27J04 .t9,30 AM.

Pren'ial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on _ _ _ set for _._ _ at ...........__..

Triallset for/re-set for] on _ _ _ at _ __

[Bench/Jury (rial] [Hearing] held/continued (0

a(

This case i. dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costslbylagreementlpursuant to]
o FRCP4(m) 0 Local Rule 41.1 0 FRCP41 (a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) •

[Other docket entry] Enter Order. Defendant's motion to dismiss [7-1) is denied. Status sct for

Wednesday October 27, 2004 at 9:30 AM.

'"

• (11)

[For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.]

-
-
-X
-

No n()t.i(.:t=s required. I:ldvised in op!::n COIJrt.,
No notiCt:~ n::quired.
Notices mailed by judge's statl NDli fled counsel by ldt=ph(me. Docket.ing to mull notices, Mail AO 450 rorrrt. Copy t.o judgt=/magislmt.t: judgt=.

.... '", r'l) ':

.. ,

, .i

S i·1

! .
numbllr or noli ~I!~
S[P 282.004
dILl/,: "(I~kct(:~
dock~tins (I(:pllt.y it"liti~l!

Docu..ont Number

CO\lTtrOO1l1 dep\lt.y's initia.1s

.. 'Datel.time received in . ctrt'lr'ii.i Clerk \ Office

d;J.te mailed nntic~ mailing deputy initilll~

Reverse Side of September 16, 2004 Minute Order Case No. 03-C-6062
In separate complaints, the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission and intervenor-plainliffLeslie A. Jones have sued Jones's former employer, Ilam ilton Communications Group ("Ham ilton"), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a for sexual harassment and retal iation. Hamilton has moved to dismiss both complaints pursuant to Fcd.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim by which relief can be granted. Hamilton argues that (I) the EEOC has not plcd sutllcicnt facts to place Hamilton on notice of the nature of its claim and (2) Jones has plcd hcrself out of court by pleading facts retlecting that the alleged misconduct was too isolated and "tepid" to support a harassment elaim. For the reasons stated below, Ham ilton's motion to dismiss is denied.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is 10 tcst the sufficiency ofthe complaint, not to dceide the merits ofthe lawsuit. TriadAssocs. v. Chicago llousingAuth., 892 F.2d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 1990). Thc fcdcralnotice pleading standard requires only that a complaint give a "short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is enIilied 10 relief, the purpose of which is to give the defendant notice of the claims [brought against itJ and the grounds they rest upon." fhompson v. Illinois Dep't of Profl Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7" Cir. 2002) (citing Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcufics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (I 993)). For purposes of reviewing this motion, the court mustlai<elhe plaintilrs well-pled allegations as true and all inferences must be construed in her favor. Thompson, 300 F.3d at 753.
Hamilton argues that the EEOC fails 10 plead sufficienl supporting facls 10 slale a discrimination claim under Title VII or Section 1981. The EEOC's complaint alleges that Hamilton (a) discriminaled againsl Jones and a class of female employees on the basis ofthcir sex by subjecting them to sexual harassment, (b) failed to correct the sexual harassment when the employees complained,and (e) subjected them to constructive discharge. It alleges futlher thai Hamilton retaliated against Jones after she complained of the harassment by altering the terms and conditions of her employment and then firing her. Those allegations, while spare, are sufficient to state a claim under the minimum pleading requirements ofFed.R.Civ.l'. 8(a). In employment discrimination cases, "neither the EEOC rules,. , nor the notice pleading requirements mandate a detailed elahoration ofthe events underlying the plaintiff's claim." Flannery v. Recording Indus. Assoc. olAm., 354 F.3d 632, 639 (7'" Cir. 2(04), A complaint need only state the hare minimum oft'acts to put the defendant on notice of the claim so that an
answer can he tiled. Id. at 639. As the Seventh Circuit has noted in the context ofa racial discrimination action, '''I was turned down for ajob hecause of my race' is all a complaint has to say." Benl/elf v. Schmidt, 153 FJd 516, 518 (7th Cir.
1998). The standard for gender discrimination is no dinerenl. Hamilton's motion to dismiss the EEOC's complaint is, therefore, denied.
As for Jones's complaint, Hamilton argues lhat Jones has pled herselfoul of court by pleading facts establishing lhal the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to be actionable under Title VII Or Section 1981. Jones alleges that (1) In April 2001, her supervisor, Jim Lee, made "comments" of a sexual nature about a co-worker, and (2) Lee "made comments to Jones that she looked 'hoI. ,,, Hamilton argues that the alleged conduct is insufficient to support a harassment claim. However, the precise number of comments at issue and the circumstances sun'ounding the described incidents are unknown. It is possible that discovery will reveal that Jones's complaint is based solely on isolated and innocuous, albeit improper, behavior. Iflhat proves to be the case, Hamilton may challenge Jones's discrimination claim at summaryjudgment. However, the court will not evaluate the factual basis of Jones's claim on a motion to dismiss.
Hamilton also contends that Jones' retaliation claim must be dismissed because she has failed to plead that she suffered an adverse employment action. That is not the case. Jones alleges that, because she opposed Lee's harassing conduct, Hamilton demanded that Jones accept a transfer to another position and, when she refused the transter, Hamillon lenninaled her. Termination is the quintessential adverse employment action. Moreover, depending on the terms and conditions of the offered position, Hamilton's efforts to transfer Jones Illay also qualify as an adverse employment action. Hamilton's Illation to dismiss Jones's retaliation claim is, therefore, denied.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

LESLIE A. JONES,

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

v.

)

)

)

HAMILTON COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, )

)

Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action No. 03 C 6062
Hon. Judge Gottschall Magistrate Judge Keys

CONSENT DECREE

Introduction

1. Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or

"Commission"), filed this action alleging that Hamilton Communications Group ("Defendant"),

discriminated against Leslie A. Jones ("Jones"), and a class of female employees by sUbjecting

them to sexual harassment, failing to correct a sexually hostile work environment, and subjecting
them to constructive discharge, in violation of Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII''), and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

U.S.C. § 1981a.

2. Neither party admits and each continues to deny any and all claims raised by the

other party in this lawsuit.

3. The EEOC and Hamilton Communications Group have agreed, as a result of

comprehensive settlement negotiations, to terminate this litigation through the entry of this

Consent Decree, which fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint filed by EEOC in this action against Hamilton Communications Group.
FlNDINGS 4. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, records and stipulations of the parties, the Court fmds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties.
b. The terms ofthis Consent Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable andjust. The rights of the parties and the public interest are adequately protected by this Consent Decree.
c. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties and the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: INJUNCTION AGAINST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
5. Hamilton Communications Group, its officers, agents, employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert with it shall not discriminate by engaging in any employment practice which discriminates against any employee at its facility on the basis of their sex.
Hamilton Communications Group, its officers, agents, employees, assigns and all persons acting in concert with it shall not retaliate against any person because that person has opposed any policy or practice made unlawful under Title VII, has filed a charge with EEOC, or because
2

of the person's participation in or cooperation with, the initiation, investigation, litigation, resolution and/or administration of any case under Title VII or asserted rights under this Consent Decree.
MONETARY RELIEF 6. By January 14, 2005, Hamilton Communications Group shall provide monetary relief in the aggregate amount of $140,000 as follows: Within ten (10) days of the date Hamilton Communications Group receives the Release Agreements attached hereto as Exhibit A executed by: Deborah Barnett; Melissa Bauer; Amy Blevins; Shanika Bradley; Megan Catanese; Amy Collins; Carmen Fox; Phyllis Lyons; Amy Sargent; and Carmie Stormello. Defendant shall forward to Leslie A. Jones a cashier's or certified check for $50,000, and Defendant shall forward to each of the other identified class members, a cashier's check as follows: Shanika Bradley $20,000; Phyllis Lyons $20,000; Amy Sargent $10,000; Deborah Barnett $10,000; Amy Collins $10,000; Megan Catanese $4,000; Melissa Bauer $4,000; Carmen Fox $4,000; Amy Blevins $4,000; and Carmie Stormello $4,000. Defendant will contemporaneously furnish EEOC counsel of record, June Wallace Calhoun, with copies of their cashier's checks by regular mail. By January 14, 2005, Hamilton Communications Group will pay $50,000 by cashier's or certified check to Leslie A. Jones upon receipt of a separate settlement agreement signed by her and Plaintiff-Intervenor counsel of record, Crystal L. Roberts, Barclay and Dixon, L.P.
POSTING OF NOTICE 7. Within five (5) business days after entry of this Consent Decree, Hamilton Communications Group shall post a same-size copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit B to this Consent Decree in a location at its facility, where notices to employees and applicants for
3

employment at such facility are normally posted. The Notice shall remain posted until that date which is two (2) years after the date of entry of this Consent Decree. Hamilton Communications Group shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that its posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Hamilton Communications Group shall certify to the EEOC in writing within ten (10) days after the date of such posting that the copy of the Notice has been properly posted. Hamilton Communications Group shall permit a representative of the EEOC to enter its premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours.
RECORD KEEPING 8 For a period of two (2) years following entry of this Consent Decree, Hamilton Communications Group shall document and maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the EEOC records of each complaint it receives (whether written or oral) alleging that it has discriminated against any female employee on the basis of their sex by subjecting them to sexual harassment, a sexually hostile work environment, and/or constructive discharge at its facility (including the name, social security number, address, and telephone number of the complainant; details of the complaint of Defendant's discrimination on the basis of sex; and details of all actions taken in response to the complaint of Defendant's discrimination on the basis of sex). 9. Hamilton Communications Group shall make all documents or records referred to in paragraph 8, above, available for inspection and copying within five (5) business days after the EEOC so requests in writing. In addition, Hamilton Communications Group shall make available all persons within its employ whom the EEOC requests for purposes of verifying
4

compliance with this Consent Decree and shall pennit a representative of the EEOC to enter its premises for such purposes on five (5) business days advance written notice by the EEOC.
10. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation Hamilton Communications Group may otherwise have to maintain records under Title VII or any other law or regulation.
REPORTING 11. Hamilton Communications Group shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for a period of two (2) years following entry of this Consent Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after entry of this Consent Decree. The subsequent report shall be due six months thereafter until that date which is two (2) years after the date of entry of this Consent Decree. Each such report shall contain (a) the infonnation required to be . maintained pursuant to paragraph 8, above, and (b) a certification by Hamilton Communications Group that the Notice required to be posted pursuant to paragraph 7, above, remained posted during the entire six (6) month period preceding the report.
TRAINING 12. Hamilton Communications Group shall provide training on Title VII to all management employees at its facility within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree. Hamilton Communications Group shall thereafter also provide training to all of its new management employees at its facility, such training shall be provided within thirty (30) days of the beginning of their employment. With respect to both of the foregoing, at least 15 days prior to providing the training Hamilton Communications Group shaH provide the EEOC with the identification of the trainer, a description of the training, and a copy of any training materials
5

used. Hamilton Communications Group shall adjust its training to accommodate all reasonable objections of EEOC.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 13. In the event that either party to this Consent Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Consent Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 14. All provisions of this Consent Decree shall be in effect (and the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Consent Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following entry of the Consent Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the two (2) year period, any disputes under paragraph 13, above, remain unresolved, the term of the Consent Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Consent Decree) until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 15. Each party to this Consent Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 16. The terms of this Consent Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors and assigns of Hamilton Communications Group.
6

17. When this Consent Decree requires the submission by Hamilton Communications Group of reports, certifications, notices or other materials to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to June Wallace Calhoun, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. When this Consent Decree requires submission by the EEOC of materials to Hamilton Communications Group they shall be mailed to: (Jim Lee, Owner and Chief Strategy Officer with a copy to Hamilton Communications Group'S attorney, Arthur Sternberg, Esq., Fagel Haber, 55 East Monroe Street, 40th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60603.

For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800

Chicago, Illinois 60661

(312) 353-7259

/

ERIC S. DREIBAND

I

General Counsel

For HAMILTON COMMUNICAnONS GROUP

7

---- Dated: l~ 3-01
8

Exhibit A

RELEASE AGREEMENT

I DEC 2 1 aJ04
I

I, Deborah Barnett, for and in consideration of the sum of $1 0,000 pUl$uarit to the terms
L.,.

of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc.,

03 C 6062 (N.D. Ill.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby

forever release, waive, and discharge Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. and all its past and

present shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and

assigns of Hamilton Communications Group, Inc., from any and all claims and causes of action

of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.C. § 1981 a., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or

which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc., 03 C 6062.

Date 7 /

A: dress: 704 Brier Street Kenilworth, Illinois 60043

, ,

,-'1

Exhibit A

DEC 2 0 3JI4' \ \

ga.IlV

RELEASE AGREEMENT

I, Melissa 8!mr, for and in consideration of the sum of $4,000 pursuant to the terms of the

Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc., 03 C

6062 (N.D. IlL), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever

release, waive, and discharge Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. and all its past and present shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and assigns

of Hamilton Communications Group Airlines, Inc., from any and all claims and causes of action of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.C. § 198Ia., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc., 03 C 6062.

Date

Melissa Bautk'

Address: 480 N. McClurg Ct., #816 Chicago, Illinois 60611

Exhibit A
RELEASE AGREEMENT

I IIEmll4l
L.o._ ;,., " ,. ~, ,.",,_-1

I, Amy Blevins, for and in consideration of the sum of $4,000 pursuant to the terms of the

Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc., 03 C

6062 (N.D. Ill.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever

release, waive, and discharge Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. and all its past and present

shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and assigns

of Hamilton Communications Group, Inc., from any and all claims and causes of action of any

kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U,S.C. § 2000e el seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42

U.S.c. § 1981a., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or which

could have been asserted in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc., 03 C 6062,

Date
Address: 4334 N. Hazel St., #1811 Chicago, Illinois 60613

Exhibit A
RELEASE AGREEMENT

\,( "ti3 ''j \,,'

\

~ '. \

-,~\,:

," \

\';l..--- . ,

i \

• I, Shanika Bradley, for and in consideration of the sum of $20,000 purs~_..J

of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group, Inc.,

03 C 6062 (N.D. I1l.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby

forever release, waive, and discharge Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. and all its past and

present shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and

assigns of Hamilton Communications Group, Inc., from any and all claims and causes of action

of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.c. § 1981 a., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or

which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc., 03 C 6062.

~an,?IJD~
Date

Shanika Bradley

Address: I 0 East Ontario Unit # 5005 Chicago, Illinois 60611

Exhibit A RELEASE AGREEMENT

UEC 2. I 2fi04. \.

L$ .... ,_...,...'

~,
._:••. ,,~J

I, Megan Catanese, for and in consideration of the sum of $4,000 pursuant to the terms of

the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc"

03 C 6062 (N.D. IIl.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby

forever release, waive, and discharge Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. and all its past and

present shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and

assigns of Hamilton Communications Group, Inc., from any and all claims and causes of action

of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.C. § 198Ia., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or

which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc" 03 C 6062.

Meg~ Catanese
Address: 3404 N. Bell Ave., #2 Chicago, Illinois 60618

Exhibit A RELEASE AGREEMENT I, Amy Collins, for and in consideration of the sum of$10,000 pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group, Inc., 03 C 6062 (N.D. Ill.), on behalf ofmyseJf, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever release, waive, and discharge Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. and all its past and present shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and assigns of Hamilton Communications Group, Inc., from any and all claims and causes of action of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group, Inc., 03 C 6062.

~CrL~

Date

Amy ColliAs

Address: 3330 N. Lakeshore Dr., #4E Chicago, Illinois 60657

·13-Jan-2DD5 DI:16am From-LEGAL

8123538555

T-5ZZ P.DDZ/DDZ F-Z96

Exhibit A
REI .EMi'E AGBE'EMENT
I, Carmen Fox, for and in consideration oithe sum ofS4,000 pUl'S\l311t to the terms ofthe Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC y. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc.. 03 C 6062 (N.D. Ill.), on behalfofmyself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever release, waive, and discharge Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. and all its past and present shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and assigns ofHamilton Communications ClToup,lnc., from any and all claims and causes of action
of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title vn ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e er seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,
42 U.S.C. § 1981a., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or
which could have been asserted in EEOC y. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc., 03 C 6062.

~enFox
Address:
366 Rolling Meadows Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48103

j
i i

Exhibit A

DEC 22_\ I

RELEASE AGREEMENT

,
1,-. ..

......--'\

I, Phyllis Lyons, for and in consideration of the sum of $20,000 pursuant to the terms of

the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc.,

03 C 6062 (N.D. Ill.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby

forever release, waive, and discharge Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. and all its past and

present shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and

assigns of Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. from any and all claims and causes of action of

any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42
u.s.c. § 1981 a., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or which

could have been asserted in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group. Inc., 03 C 6062.

Date
Address: 19W686 13th Place Lombard, Illinois 60148

05-Jan-2005 09:38am From-LEGAL

3123538555

T-465 P.004/004 F-I60

Exhibit A
BEJ¥ASEAGREEMENT I, Amy Sargent, for and in consideration of the sum of $1 0,000 pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Hamilton CommynjpetjQp!i Gmuo, Tnc., 03 C 6062 (N,D. D1.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever releuc, waive, and discharge Hamilton Conununications Gmup, Inc. BIId all its past and present shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and assigns of Hamilton Communications Group, Inc., from BIIY and all claims and causes of action
of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e er seq. ("Title Vfl"), BIId Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a., as a result of Or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Gmup. InC., 03 C 6062.
*~4¥ AmyS t
Address: 3140 West Sunnyside Ave. #2 Chicago, Illinois 60625

,,i

i i i

7 i 9!D/ ,

: I f

Exhibit A

If' . r ;:(:::1'

_,_ .... __ f_· __, ~. - . - '"

JAN - 5 aIDS -]

i__ RELEASE AGREEMENT

~~.:~:~-_~,~~::~~:~l-

I, Carmie Stormello, for and in consideration of the sum of $4,000 pursuant to the terms

of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. ,

03 C 6062 (N.D. Ill.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby

forever release, waive, and discharge Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. and all its past and

present shareholders, officers, agents, employees and representatives as well as all successors and

assigns of Hamilton Communications Group, Inc. from any and all claims and causes of action

of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.C. § 1981 a., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or

which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group, Inc., 03 C 6062.

Carmie Stormello
Address: 1310 Ritchie Ct.., Unit # 8C Chicago, Illinois 60610

Exhibit B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS OF
HAMILTON COMMUNICATIONS GROUP. INC.

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. Hamilton Communications Group, 03 C 6062 (N.D. Illinois), settling a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

In its suit, the EEOC alleged that Defendant Hamilton Communications Group
("Defendant") discriminated against a class of female employees on the basis of their sex by
subjecting them to sexual harassment, failing to correct the sexually hostile work environment
and subjecting them to constructive discharge in violation of Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII'') and Title I of the Civil rights Act of
1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981a.. Defendant denied the EEOC's allegations.

To resolve this lawsuit the parties have entered into a Consent Decree which requires Defendant to:
I) provide monetary relief to the employees who claimed to be aggrieved by Defendant's practices:

2) not discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual harassment at its Hamilton facility;

3) provide periodic reports to the EEOC of any complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex discrimination that it receives;
4) provide training to its management employees regarding Title vn of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, color, religion, national origin, sex and age. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (312) 353-2713. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE This Notice must remain posted for two (2) years from the date below and must not
be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: Hamilton Communications Group Settlement, EEOC, SOO West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661.

Dated:

U.S. District Judge Gottschall

9

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?604441682108481-L_35...
CLOSED, KEYS
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-06062

US EEOC, et al v. Hamilton Commc Grp Assigned to: Hon. Joan B. Gottschall Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex) Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V. Defendant

Date Filed: 08/28/2003 Date Terminated: 02/03/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by June Wallace Calhoun United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: june.calhoun@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886-9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 5

7/12/2007 11:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?604441682108481-L_35...

Hamilton Communications Group
Intervenor Plaintiff Leslie A Jones

represented by Arthur B. Sternberg Fagel & Haber 55 E. Monroe St. 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 346-7500 Email: asternberg@fagelhaber.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Robert Ahler Scandaglia & Ryan 55 E. Monroe St. Suite 3930 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 580-2020 Email: jahler@scandagliaryan.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lester Lloyd Barclay Barclay & Dixon, P.C. 39 South LaSalle Street Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 553-0123 Email: lbarclay@barclaydixon.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Crystal Laprie Roberts Barclay & Dixon, P.C. 39 South LaSalle Street Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 553-0123 Email: croberts@barclaydixon.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/28/2003
08/29/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of June Wallace Carson, Gregory M. Gochanour, John C. Hendrickson as attorney(s) for plaintiff ( No summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (ar) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Hamilton Commc Grp by Arthur B. Sternberg, James Robert Ahler (ar) (Entered: 09/02/2003)

2 of 5

7/12/2007 11:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?604441682108481-L_35...

09/29/2003 09/29/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/06/2003
10/27/2003 10/31/2003
11/20/2003 11/21/2003 11/21/2003 12/08/2003 09/20/2004
10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004

3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for proposed intervenor Leslie A Jones by Leste L. Barclay and Crystal L. Roberts (ar) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
4 MOTION by Leslie A Jones for leave to intervene ; Notice (ar) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
5 MINUTE ORDER of 10/3/03 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Leslie Jones' motion for leave to intervene is granted [4-1]. Defendant to answer or otherwise pled to intervenors' complaint by 10/27/03. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
6 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by Leslie A Jones (ar) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 10/6/03 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing set to 9:30 11/13/03. Plaintiff is directed to advise the defendants of the status hearing forthwith. Parties are directed to discuss settlement of case, consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge and a proposed discovery plan. See Judge Gottschall's civil case management packet for important information about pretrial case management procedures. This information is also located on the court's website: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (rj) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
7 MOTION by Hamilton Commc Grp to dismiss EEOC's and Jones' complaints ; Memorandum of law in support; Notice (ar) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
8 MINUTE ORDER of 10/31/03 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Answer brief to defendant Hamilton's motion to dismiss is due by 11/21/03 [7-1]. Reply to answer brief due 12/8/03. Status hearing set for 11/13/03 is vacated. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
9 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's 12(b0(6) motion to dismiss EEOC's and Jones' complaints [7-1]; Notice. (air) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
10 RESPONSE by intervenor plaintiff Leslie A Jones in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss EEOC's and Jones' complaints [7-1]; Notice. (aga) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
11 MEMORANDUM by intervenor plaintiff Leslie A Jones in support opposition [10-1] to defendant's motion to dismiss. (aga) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
12 REPLY by defendant in support of motion to dismiss [7-1] (ar) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
13 MINUTE ORDER of 9/20/04 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall: Enter order. Defendant's motion to dismiss EEOC's and Jones' complaints is denied [7-1]. Status hearing set for Wednesday, 10/27/04 at 9:30 a.m. (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (gma) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
14 REFERRAL ORDER: Case referred to Hon. Arlander Keys for settlement conference Mailed notice. (rj) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
15 ANSWER by defendant to intervener's complaint [6-1]. (gma) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
16 ANSWER by defendant to EEOC complaint [1-1]. (gma) (Entered: 10/13/2004)

3 of 5

7/12/2007 11:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?604441682108481-L_35...

10/18/2004
10/20/2004
10/27/2004 11/17/2004
12/17/2004 01/19/2005 01/26/2005 01/26/2005 02/03/2005 02/03/2005

17 MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/04 by Hon. Arlander Keys: Settlement conference set for 11/12/04 at 10:00 a.m. All parties are to be represented at the settlement conference by an individual (other than their attorneys) with full authority to settle. The parties are to exhange (but not file) written settlement offers, copies of which are to be submitted to the court by 11/8/04. Mailed notice (gma) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
18 MINUTE ORDER of 10/20/04 by Hon. Arlander Keys: Pursuant to the request of the parties, settlement conference set for 11/12/04 is reset to 11/17/04 at 10:00 a.m. All parties are to be represented at the settlement conference by an individual (other than their attorneys) with full authority to settle. The parties are to exchange (but not file) written settlement offers, copies of which are to be submitted to the court by 11/12/04. Mailed notice (gma) (Entered: 10/21/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 10/27/04 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing set for 10/27/04 is vacated. No notice (rj) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
19 MINUTE ORDER of 11/17/04 by Hon. Arlander Keys : Settlement conference held. The case settled, which will involve a consent decree. The parties will need additional time to prepare the settlement documents. A status hearing is set for 12/17/04 at 9:00 a.m. If plaintiff files the consent decree with this Court prior to the next status hearing, the status will be stricken and parties will not need to appear. Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
20 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/04 by Hon. Arlander Keys: The parties will need additional time to prepare the settlement documents. A status hearing is set for 1/19/05 at 9:00 a.m. If plaintiff files the consent decree with this court prior to the next status hearing, the status will be stricken and parties will not need to appear. Mailed notice (gma) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
21 MINUTE entry before Judge Arlander Keys : Status hearing held on 1/19/2005. The parties are in agreement with the terms of a consent decree which they will submit to the district judge. Judge Arlander Keys no longer referred to the case. Notices mailed by judge's staff (ac ) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
22 MOTION by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for entry of consent decree (gma, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
23 NOTICE of Motion by June Wallace Carson for presentment of MOTION by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for entry of consent decree 22 before Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 2/3/2005 at 09:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
24 MINUTE entry before Judge Joan B. Gottschall : Plaintiff's motion for entry of consent decree 22 is granted. Enter Consent Decree. Each party to this consent decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attornneys fees. Case terminated. Docketing to mail notices (lxs, ) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
25 CONSENT Decree Signed by Judge Joan B. Gottschall on 2/3/2005; Exhibits. (lxs, ) Modified on 12/5/2005 (ym, ). (Entered: 02/09/2005)

4 of 5

7/12/2007 11:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?604441682108481-L_35...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/12/2007 11:49:36

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: clearinghouse

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:03-cv-06062

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

0.24

5 of 5

7/12/2007 11:50 AM