UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

00-74344

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

v.

) JOHN CORBED O'MEARA

)

HONORABLE

FORD MOTOR COMPANY and

)

VISTEON CORPORATION,

) MAGTSTRA IE JUDGE SCHEER
)

Defendants.

)

COM P L A I N T

)

)

--------------------------------) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the Americans with

S "'1'\ Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title I of the Civil Ri9~ AC of

..

- 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the ~'0 SiS~f .~ ".-

-\~,

.... _ , .

I

\',;

disability and to provide appropriate relief to charg~~~~rt~s ~

Karen Martin and Linda Crider and other similarloy,~.§-lj~~uat~

~
'-'

individuals who were adversely affected by such pr~arc-~ceC~::!>

,

-::f'.

,-

Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford") failed to hire Karen Martin

because of her disability (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus).

Defendants Ford and Visteon Corporation ("Visteon") also made

illegal medical inquiries of job applicants, including Linda Crider

and Karen Martin, by asking whether they had a disability on a

questionnaire attached to the employment applications. Defendants

Ford and Visteon also subjected Crider and other job applicants to

pre-employment medical examinations prior to extending them an

offer of employment, which is prohibited under the ADA. Defendants

)

then refused to hire Martin and others based on the results obtained from the unlawful medical examinations.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §107 (a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §12117 (a) , which incorporates by reference §§706(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f) (1 and (3), and pursuant to. §102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by §107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference §§ 706(f) (l)and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5(f) (l)and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Ford has been doing business in the State of Michigan, Cities of Sterling Heights and Plymouth, and has continuously had and does now have at least
2

fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Visteon has been doing
business in the State of Michigan, Cities of Sterling Heights and Plymouth, and has continuously had and does now have at least fifteen (15) employees.
6. At all relevant times up to the period of June 30, 2000, Ford was the parent company of its subsidiary, Visteon.
7. At all relevant times up to the period of June 30, 2000, Ford operated and conducted business at its Sheldon Road Plant, in Plymouth, MI under the name and/or using the name "Visteon."
8. On or about June 30, 2000, Ford spun-off Visteon, making Visteon an independent corporate entity.
9. On or about June 30, 2000, Ford's Sheldon Road Plant in Plymouth, MI and its Sterling Heights plant in Sterling Heights, MI, began being operated by independent corporation Visteon wherein Visteon continued the business of producing automotive systems and components similar to those previously manufactured at the facilities when owned by Ford.
10. Despite the corporate spin-off of Visteon, all employees at Visteon at the time of the spin-off on or about June 30, 2000, remain Ford employees.
11. To date, the majority of Ford salaried and non-salaried employees working at the two Visteon plants, referenced in Par. 9, above, prior to the corporate spin-off, remain employed at the two
3

Visteon plants.

12. At all relevant times, Defendant, Ford Motor Company, has

continuously been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within

the meaning of §101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(5), and §107(7)

of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12117(7), which incorporates by reference

§§701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h).

13. At all relevant times, Defendant, Visteon, has

continuously been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within

the meaning of §101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(5), and §107(7)

of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12117(7), which incorporates by reference

§§701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h).

14. Visteon is both an employer and "successor employer" for

purposes of this action and both it and Ford are liable for any

discriminatory conduct which occurred at the Sheldon Road and

Sterling Heights plants referenced in Par. 9, above, both prior and

subsequent to the corporate spin-off on or about June 30, 2000.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

15. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of

this lawsuit, Karen Martin (Halucha) and Linda Crider each filed a

charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of

Title I of the ADA by Ford Motor Company. All conditions precedent

to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

16.

Ford had notice of the Charge of Discrimination filed

by Karen Martin and both Ford and Visteon had notice of the Charge

4

of Discrimination filed by Linda Crider. 17. Since at least April 1995, Defendants Ford and Visteon
have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities, including, but not limited to, its Sterling Heights, Michigan Plant and Sheldon Road Plant in Plymouth, Michigan, in violation of §102 (d) (2) (A) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12112 (d) (2) (A) . These unlawful practices include the following:
a. Requesting, pre-offer, that job applicants, including Charging Party Linda Crider, disclose their "handicapped" status in connection with their application for employment on a questionnaire attached to the employment application which fails to comply with the ADA;
b. Administering pre-offer physical/medical examinations to job applicants including Charging Party, Linda Crider, and other similarly-situated individuals which constituted illegal medical examinations under the ADA, and;
c. Refusing to hire Charging Party Linda Crider, and other similarly-situated individuals due to information gathered and/or obtained during the illegal preemployment medical inquiries and examinations referred to in.Paragraphs 8(a) and (b), above.
18. Since at least April 1995, Defendants Ford has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Sterling Heights, MI
5

facility, in violation of §102(a) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12112 (a), when it failed to hire Charging Party Karen Martin because of her disability. Specifically, Ford revoked an employment offer made to Martin for a production position after learning about Martin's medical conditions during a post-offer medical examination. Such decision was made despite the fact that Martin was a qualified individual with a disability, as defined by the ADA, and could have performed the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation and without posing a direct threat.
19. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraphs 17 and 18, above, has been to deprive Karen Martin, Linda Crider and others of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants for employment.
20. The unlawful employment practices stated in Paragraphs 17 and 18, above, were and are intentional and were committed with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Martin, Crider, and other job applicants, including those with disabilities, as defined under the ADA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. GRANT a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Ford Motor Company and Visteon Corp. its officers, successors, assigns
6

and all persons in active concert or participation with it or any of its subsidiaries, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates because of disability
B. ORDER Ford Motor Company and Visteon, Corp. to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities to qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. ORDER Ford Motor Company and Visteon, Corp. to cease making unlawful pre-offer medical inquiries at the application stage of the employment process, by either ceasing use of its supplemental data form, or, in the alternative, ensuring it complies with the ADA.
D. ORDER Ford Motor Company and Visteon, Corp. to stop conducting medical/physical examinations of job applicants until after it has extended an offer of employment.
E. ORDER Ford Motor Company and Visteon, Corp. to make whole Martin, Griae~ and other similarly situated individuals adversely affected by Defendant's unlawful conduct by hiring them into entrylevel production positions retroactive to the date they were denied hire by Ford and/or Visteon, and by providing them with appropriate lost earnings and benefits, with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be proven at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
7

•
F. ORDER Ford Motor Company and Visteon, Corp. to pay punitive damages in an appropriate amount for committing various pre-employment medical inquiries and examinations made impermissible under the ADA and for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described in Paragraphs 17 and 18, above, in an amount to be proven at trial.
G. GRANT such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. AWARD the Commission its costs in this action.
JURy TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, C. Gregory Stewart General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

DATE I

Regional At~rney
STANLEY H. PITTS (P33519) Supervisory Trial Attorney
8

TRINA R. FLIPPEN (P59458) Trial Attorney DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Bldg. 477 Michigan Avenue, Rm.865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone: 313-226-6701
9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and VISTEON CORPORATION,
Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTIO

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NATURE OF ACTION This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties Linda Crider and Karen Martin (f/kJa Karen Halucha) and other similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 19 and 20 below, the Commission alleges that Defendants Ford Motor Company and Visteon Corporation made unlawful medical inquiries of Crider, Martin and other similarly situated job applicants. Defendants Ford Motor Company and Visteon Corporation also subjected Crider and other similarly situated job applicants to pre-employment medical examinations prior to extending them an offer of employment. Further, Defendant Ford Motor Company failed to hire Martin because of her disability (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, l331, l337, l343, and l345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f) (1) and (3) ofTitie VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f) (1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I ofthe ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.c. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f) (1) and (3) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, the Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), a Delaware corporation, has been doing business in the State of Michigan and the Cities of Sterling Heights and Plymouth, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, the Defendant Visteon Corporation ("Visteon"), a Delaware corporation, has been doing business in the State of Michigan and the Cities of Sterling Heights and Plymouth, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
2

6. At all relevant times up to the period of June 30, 2000, Ford was the parent company of its subsidiary, Visteon.
7. At all relevant times up to the period of June 30, 2000, Ford operated and conducted business at its Sheldon Road Plant in Plymouth, Michigan under and/or using the name "Visteon."
8. On or about June 30, 2000, Ford spun-offVisteon, thereby making Visteon an independent corporate entity.
9. On or about June 30, 2000, Ford's Sheldon Road plant in Plymouth, Michigan and its Sterling Heights, Michigan plant commenced operations as the independent corporate entity "Visteon" and continued the business of producing automotive systems and components similar to those previously manufactured at these facilities when owned by Ford.
10. Despite Ford's corporate spin-offofVisteon, all employees at Visteon at the time ofthe spin-off on or about June 30, 2000, remain Ford employees.
II. To date, the majority ofFord salaried and non-salaried employees working at the Visteon plants referenced in paragraph 9, prior to the corporate spin-off, remain employed at these Visteon plants.
12. At all relevant times, Defendant Ford has continuously been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C § 12111(5), and Section 107(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. § 12117(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (g) and (h).
13. At all relevant times, Defendant Visteon has continuously been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C § 12111(5), and Section 107(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(7), which incorporates by
3

reference Sections 701(g) and (h) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (g) and (h). 14. At all relevant times, Defendant Ford has been a covered entity under Section
101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2). 15. At all relevant times, Defendant Visteon has been a covered entity under Section
101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. § 12111(2). STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
16. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties Linda Crider ("Crider") and Karen Martin (f/kla Karen Halucha) ("Martin") each filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title I ofthe ADA by Defendant Ford. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
17. Defendant Ford had notice of the Charge filed by Martin. 18. Defendants Ford and Visteon had notice of the Charge filed by Crider. 19. Since at least April 1995, Defendants Ford and Visteon have engaged in unlawful practices in violation of the ADA Section 102(d)(2)(A) at its facilities, including but not limited to, its Sterling Heights, Michigan plant and its Sheldon Road plant in Plymouth, Michigan. These practices include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) requesting, pre-offer, that Crider and other similarly situated job applicants
disclose their "handicapped" status on the Supplemental Data Form attached to Defendants' employment application; (b) conducting pre-offer physical/medical examinations of Crider and other similarly situated job applicants; (c) refusing to hire Crider and other similarly situated job applicants based on information gathered and/or obtained during the unlawful pre-employment
4

medical inquiries and examinations referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above. 20. Since at least April 1995, Defendant Ford has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of ADA Section 102(a), when it failed to hire Martin because of her disability. Specifically, Ford revoked an offer of employment to Martin for a production position after learning of her medical condition during a post-offer medical examination. Defendant Ford revoked its employment offer to Martin despite the fact that she was a qualified individual with a disability and could have performed the essential functions ofthe job with or without reasonable accommodation and without posing a direct threat. 21. The effect ofthe unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 19 and 20 has been to deprive Crider, Martin and other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants for employment. 22. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 19 and 20 were and are intentional. 23. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 19 and 20 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Crider, Martin and other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants Ford and Visteon, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it from engaging in any unlawful employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability.
5

B. Order Defendants Ford and Visteon to institute and carry out policies, practices, and prograrns which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendants Ford and Visteon to stop making unlawful pre-offer medical inquiries ofjob applicants by either discontinuing use of its Supplemental Data Form or, in the alternative, ensuring that this form complies with the ADA;
D. Order Defendants Ford and Visteon to stop conducting medical/physical examinations ofjob applicants until after it has extended an offer of employment;
E Order Defendants Ford and Visteon to make whole Crider, Martin and other similarly situated individuals by hiring them into entry-level production positions retroactive to the date they were denied hire by Ford andlor Visteon, and providing them with appropriate lost earnings, seniority and benefits, with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be proven at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
F. Order Defendants Ford and Visteon to pay punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described in paragraphs 19 and 20 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H.. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
6

JURy TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised in this lawsuit.
Respectfully submitted,
C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

Dated: October 13, 2000

ADELERAPPO Regional Attorne
ROBERT K. DAWKINS (P38289) Supervisory Trial Attorney
DEBORAH M. BARNO (P44525) Senior Trial Attorney
TRINA R. FLIPPEN (P59458) Trial Attorney
DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-6701

7

 
 CLOSED
UNITED STATES DISTRlcr COURT EASTERN DISTRlcr OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY and

)

VISTEON CORPORATION.

)

)

Defendants

)

------------)

CONSENT DECREE

*
jUL 15 zeo!
CLERK'S OFFICE U S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN MICHIGAN

1. Plaintiff. the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

"Commission") commenced this action on September 29. 2000 in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Southern Division, alleging that the Defendants, Ford

Motor Company ("Ford") and Visteon Corporation ("Visteon") made unlawful pre-employment

medical inquiries of Charging Parties Karen Martin ("Martin"). Linda Crider ("Crider") and

other similarly situated applicants. in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),

42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The Commission further alleged that Ford and Visteon subjected

Crider and other similarly situated applicants to pre-employment medical examinations prior to

extending an offer of employment. and that Ford failed to hire Martin and other similarly situated

applicants based upon their disability. all in further violation of the ADA. Ford and Visteon

denied these allegations.

2. As a result of settlement discussions. the Commission Ford and Visteon have

resolved their differences and have agreed that this action should be settled by entry of this

004.307507.1

Consent Decree. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree be a final and binding settlement in full disposition of any and all claims alleged or which could have been alleged in the Complaint and Amended Complaint against Ford and Visteon or in the Charges of Discrimination filed by Martin and Crider. Charge Nos. 230-95-1914 and 230-99-0082. respectively.
STIPULATED FACTS 3. The Commission is the agency of the United States government authorized by the ADA to investigate allegations of unlawful employment discrimination based upon disability. to bring civil actions to prohibit unlawful employment practices. and to seek relief for individuals affected by such practices. 4. Ford is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2). which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (g) and (h). Ford had at least 15 employees for 20 or more calendar weeks during the relevant period of time. 5. Visteon is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2). which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (g) and (h). Visteon had at least 15 employees for 20 or more calendar weeks during the relevant period of time. 6. The actions of which the agency complained occurred at the Sterling Heights plant and the Sheldon Road plant. These two facilities are currently owned by Visteon. The current salaried and management employees at these two plants are employees of Visteon. The hourly employees are Ford employees doing work for Visteon pursuant to an agreement between Visteon and Ford.
2
004.307507.1

6. Pursuant to the ADA. the parties acknowledge the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division) over the subject matter and parties to this case for the purpose of entering this Decree. and if necessary. enforcing the provisions of this Decree.
7. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division). For purposes of this Decree and proceedings related to this Decree only. Ford and Visteon agree that all statutory conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit against Ford and Visteon have been fulfilled.
FINDINGS 8. Having examined the terms and provisions of the Consent Decree and based on the pleadings. records. and stipulations of the parties. the Court finds the following: a. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action against Ford and
Visteon; b. The terms and provisions of this Consent Decree are fair. reasonable and just. The
rights of Ford. Visteon. the Commission. and those for whom the Commission seeks relief are adequately protected by this Decree; c. The Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ADA. and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of the ADA and will be in the best interests of the parties and those for whom the Commission seeks relief NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
NON·ADMISSION 9. This Decree. being entered with the consent of the Commission. Ford and Visteon. shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of this ease and shall not be construed as an admission by Ford or Visteon of any violation of the ADA or. any other law. rule or regulation dealing with or in connection with equal employment opportunity.
3
004.307507.1

NON.DlSCRIMINATION
10. Ford and Visteon, and their officers, agents, and employees, shall comply with the provisions of the ADA, 42 U. S.C. § 12101 et seq., with regard to disability discrimination.
11. Visteon, its officers, agents, and employees, shall make an individualized assessment of an applicant's ability in making hiring decisions. Visteon shall not automatically exclude from employment opportunities any individual based on a physical restriction code without first conducting an individualized assessment as to that individual's ability to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Visteon shall not make any medical inquiry or conduct any medical examination of an applicant prior to making an offer of employment.
NON·RETALIATION
12. Ford shall not take any action against any person which constitutes intimidation, retaliation, harassment, or interference with the exercise of such person's rights under the ADA because of the filing of Charges of Discrimination by Karen (Halucha) Martin and Linda Crider, which form the basis for the present case, or because such person gave testimony or assistance or participated in any manner in any investigation or proceeding in connection with this case under the ADA.
13. Visteon shall not take any action against any person which constitutes intimidation, retaliation, harassment, or interference with the exercise of such person's rights under the ADA because of the filing of Charges of Discrimination by Karen (Halucha) Martin and Linda Crider, which form the basis for the present case, or because such person gave testimony or assistance or participated in any manner in any investigation or proceeding in connection with this case under the ADA.
4
004.307507.1

MONETARY COMPENSATIO:-.I 14. On or before July 31, 2002, Visteon will pay monetary damages totaling $415,000 to Martin, Crider and the other similarly situated claimants. The parties agree that damages do not include any compensation for back wages. The Commission will provide Visteon with a list of the similarly situated claimants and specific amounts to be paid to each individual. The specific individual amounts will be paid without deductions or withholdings and reported to each individual claimant on a Form 1099 in January, 2003. Visteon will mail the individual checks to the addressees provided by the EEOC on the attachment to this agreement. The checks will be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.
TRAINING AND/OR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IS. Ford confirms that it is providing mandatory training to all human resources and medical personnel within Michigan facilities who participate in hiring and placement decisions. The training focuses on the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (as amended) and includes discussion of the prohibition against making medical inquiries or examinations prior to issuance of a conditional offer of employment and the statutory requirements for fairly evaluating the abilities of individuals with disabilities in the hiring and placement process. 16. Visteon confirms that it is providing mandatory training to all human resources and medical personnel within Michigan facilities who participate in hiring and placement decisions. Visteon agrees that during the next five (5) years it will continue to provide training to its management, supervisory and lower level personnel at its Michigan facilities who participate in personnel decision making, which will focus on the requirements of the federal equal employment opportunity laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. The training plan will include Visteon's hiring and medical personnel as a targeted
5
004.307507.1

group. and will specifically consist of. without limitation. training on the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act relating to interviewing. hiring. and medical inquiries or examinations. The type. schedule and amount of training will be determined by Visteon. provided that (a) fair market value of the training during the five year period will be at least $200.000.00 and (b) Visteon presents by May 1st of each year (2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006) to the EEOC a schedule showing the training conducted. the groups to whom the training was offered (specified by group type [e.g., supervisionJ. and the approximate value of the training. The Commission will credit toward this amount all training conducted by Visteon during 2002 which was conducted prior to this Agreement being executed. Visteon is not required to provide further training as mandated herein once the fair market value of training provided exceeds $200.000.00. Visteon agrees to provide copies of the list of attendees at its training sessions to the EEOC.
PRACTICES FOR MAKING JOn OFFERS 17. Visteon affirms that its current practice requires making and communicating real job offers to applicants prior to requiring applicants to submit to pre-employment physical examinations and that such practice will continue in compliance with applicable law. Specifically. Visteon's current practice provides that written job offers are given to applicants prior to pre-employment physical examinations. A copy of a sample offer letter is attached as Exhibit B. Visteon will maintain this practice in the same or substantially similar form. throughout the term of this Consent Decree.
POSTING OF NOTICE 18. Visteon agrees that it shall post a copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit A in a conspicuous location at all of its Michigan facilities where employee notices are posted. The
6
004.307507.1

notice shall be posted for three (3) years from the date the Consent Decree is entered by the Court. Should the posted notice become defaced, marred or otherwise made unreadable, Visteon agrees to post a readable copy of the notice as soon as practical thereafter.
DURATION 19. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the date it is entered, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the duration of this Decree to enforce compliance with the Decree.
REPORTING 20. Visteon's reports pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be submitted to: Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, EEOC, Detroit District Office, 477 Michigan Avenue, Suite 865, Patrick V. McNamara Building, Detroit, Michigan 48226.
DISPUTE RESOUITION AND COMPLIANCE 21. The Court will have all available equitable powers, including injunctive relief, to enforce this Decree. Upon motion of any party, the Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose of reviewing any party's compliance with this Decree and/or ordering appropriate relief to determine whether the parties have complied with the terms of this Decree. Prior to seeking review by the Court, the parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute concerning compliance with the Decree. Any party seeking court review of a mailer shall be required to give ten (10) days notice to the other parties before moving for such review.
COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES 22. Each party shall bear its own court costs and attorney fees.
7
004.307507.1

MISCELLANEOUS 23. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is found to be unlawful. only the specific provision(s) in question shall be affected and the other provisions will remain in full force and effect. 24. The terms of this Decree shall be binding upon the present and future owners. officers. directors. employees. creditors. agents. trustees. administrators. successors. representatives. and assigns of Ford. 25. The terms of this Decree shall be binding upon the present and future owners. officers. directors. employees. creditors. agents. trustees. administrators. successors. representatives. and assigns of Visteon. 26. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and commitments of the parties. Any modifications to this Decree must be mutually agreed upon and memorialized in a writing signed by Ford. Visteon and the Commission. 27. When this Decree requires or permits the submission of any documents by Ford and/or Visteon to the Commission. if not otherwise indicated in the Decree. they shall be mailed to Adele Rapport. Regional Attorney. EEOC. Detroit District Office. Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building. 477 Michigan Avenue. Room 865. Detroit. MI 48226.
8
004.307507.1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

FORD MOTOR COMPANY and VISTEON CORPORATION
FOLEY & LARDNER Atto eys for Defendants

Adele Rapport Regional Attorney
Robert Dawkins Supervisory Trial Attorney
Trina R. Mengesha (P59458) Trial Attorney
Detroit District Office Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building 477 Michigan Ave.• Room 865 Detroit MI 48226

am s W. Poppe I Laura Street
jacksonville. FL 32202 (904) 359-2000
•
Jen .fer I ( 469) ounsel for Defendants
Office of General Counsel FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1500 Parklane Towers West Dearborn. MI 48126

9
004.307507.1

EXHIBIT A
NOTICE
This notice is being posted as part of the remedy agreed to by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ford Motor Company. and Visteon Corporation pursuant to a Consent Decree. and to infonn you of your rights guaranteed by the federal law under the Americans With Disabilities Act. 42 U.S. C. § 12101 et. seq. ("ADA"). The ADA prohibits discrimination against any employee on the basis of disability with regard to any tenn or condition of employment including hiring. layoff. recall. promotion. discharge. pay and fringe benefits or in retaliation for the opposition to unlawful employment practices.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination and. if necessary. brings lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title I (the employment provision) of the ADA.
Visteon Corporation supports and will comply with this federal law in all respects. Visteon Corporation further agrees that it will conduct an individual assessment of all applicants' ability to perfonn the essential functions of the job. with or without reasonable accommodation. before disqualifying any applicant from employment.
004.307507.1

Offer of Employment for
Hourly Positions

Dear _ _ _ _ _ __

Congratulations! We are pleased to offer you a position as a production employee with Visteon _ _~. Your initial rate of pay will be determined by the position in which you are placed under the
terms of the collective bargaining agreemcnt (if applicablc).

This offer is subject to the following conditions:

(I) This offer is given to fill reasonably anticipated openings. Our experience has shown that we must give more offers than the number of reasonably anticipated openings because a certain percentage of the persons offered positions will either be disqualified or will voluntarily withdraw from consideration. If we have more persons qualified than there are actual openings and you are not hired. you will be offered ajob again when the next openings becomc available.

(2) Successful completion of a drug screen.

(3) Successful completion of a routine post-offer employment physical examination.

(4) Proof of identification and valid U.S. work authorization.

(5) Verification of thc data contained in your employment applicationlbackground investigation.

Visteon will notify you (orally or in writing) if your placement into an actual vacancy is in any way adversely affected by the results of your drug screcn or mcdical examination.

<-> The offer of employment remains in effect until

. If you have any questions or require

additional information. plcase contact

• your Vistcon Labor Relations Representative. at

_-__. We hope you will give our offer favorable consideration.

Name Title

I. -=~::-:---:-:-::--_ _ _ accept the terms of this offer. Candidatc's Name

11
004.307507.1

Class Member Karen Martin Linda Crider Dorman Ray Anthony Delegato Jason Gustafson Jason Moses Marc Perkola Jonathan Robinson Tammy Valdez Brian Nickerson Jeffrey Young

FordNisteon Monetary Distribution

Back Pay Amount $87,619 $73,903 $60,687 $15,342 $40,878 $36,707 $27,479 $17,385 $0 $0 $0

Additional Amount $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

004.307507.1

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?185182833020257-L_3...

CLOSED, DAS, PROTECTIVEORDER
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:00-cv-74344-NGE

EEOC v. Ford Mtr Co, et al Assigned to: Honorable Nancy G Edmunds Demand: $0 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission TERMINATED: 07/15/2002
1 of 4

Date Filed: 09/29/2000 Date Terminated: 07/15/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Adele Rapport Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-5670 Email: Adele.Rapport@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 07/15/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah M. Barno Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-6701 Fax: 313-226-6701 TERMINATED: 06/13/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert K. Dawkins Equal Employment Opportunities Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-4600 Fax: 313-226-2778 Email: robert.dawkins@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 07/15/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/5/2007 11:55 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report
V. Defendant Ford Motor Company TERMINATED: 07/15/2002
Defendant Visteon Corporation TERMINATED: 07/15/2002
2 of 4

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?185182833020257-L_3...
Trina R. Mengesha Equal Employment Opportunities Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-4600 Fax: 313-226-2778 Email: trina.mengesha@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 07/15/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer A. Zinn Ford Motor Company 1500 Parklane Towers West Three Parklane Boulevard Dearborn, MI 48126 313-322-0231 Fax: 313-322-0231 TERMINATED: 07/15/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond J. Carey Foley & Lardner (Detroit) 150 W. Jefferson Avenue Suite 1000 Detroit, MI 48226-4443 313-963-6200 Email: rjcarey@foley.com TERMINATED: 07/15/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer A. Zinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond J. Carey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2002
6/5/2007 11:55 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?185182833020257-L_3...

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2000 10/17/2000 10/20/2000 11/20/2000 11/20/2000 11/21/2000 11/30/2000 12/06/2000
02/28/2001 03/21/2001 05/15/2001 05/18/2001
05/24/2001 05/31/2001 06/13/2001 06/20/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT jury demand (kg) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
2 FIRST AMENDED complaint by plaintiff with jury demand (lg) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
3 ORDER reassigning case from Judge John Corbett O'Meara to Judge Avern Cohn - Reason: disqualified; with proof of mailing (nh) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
4 ANSWER by defendants to amended complaint by EEOC [2-1] with proof of mailing (LS) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
4 AFFIRMATIVE defenses by defendants (LS) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
5 NOTICE by the court of setting civil status conference for 2:00 12/5/00 with proof of mailing (LS) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
6 APPEARANCE for plaintiff of attorney Deborah M. Barno, Adele Rapport, Robert K. Dawkins with proof of mailing (LS) (Entered: 12/04/2000)
7 PRETRIAL scheduling order by Judge Avern Cohn - setting deadline for discovery for 6/30/01 , setting deadline for filing motions for 7/15/01 , setting final pretrial conference for 2:00 10/9/01 , setting civil jury trial for 9:00 10/29/01 (LS) (Entered: 12/07/2000)
8 PROOF of mailing by plaintiffs of first set of interrogatories and request for documents and notice of deposition (LS) (Entered: 03/01/2001)
9 PROOF of mailing by plaintiff of re-notice of depositions of John Boutorwick and Fred Berean (LS) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
10 ORDER reassigning case from Judge Avern Cohn to Judge Nancy G. Edmunds Reason: disqualified; with proof of mailing (nh) (Entered: 05/16/2001)
11 PRETRIAL scheduling order by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds - setting deadline for filing dispositive motions for 7/15/01 , setting deadline for final pretrial order for 10/23/01 , setting final pretrial conference for 2:00 p.m. on 10/30/01 and setting civil jury trial for 11/1/01 ; with proof of mailing (dp) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
12 PROOF of mailing of plaintiff's answers to defendant's first set of interrogatories (lg) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
13 MOTION by plaintiff and defendants to amend scheduling order with brief (dp) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
14 NOTICE by EEOC to withdraw attorney Deborah M. Barno for EEOC with proof of mailing (kg) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
15 ORDER by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds granting motion to amend scheduling order by Ford Mtr Co, Visteon Corp, EEOC [13-1], setting deadline for witness

3 of 4

6/5/2007 11:55 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?185182833020257-L_3...

07/23/2001 10/18/2001 10/30/2001 11/05/2001
07/15/2002

list for 10/15/01 , setting deadline for discovery for 12/15/01 , setting deadline for filing dispositive motions for 1/15/02 , setting deadline for final pretrial order for 4/18/02 , setting final pretrial conference for 2:00 4/25/02 , setting civil jury trial for 9:00 5/2/02 with proof of mailing [EOD Date 6/21/01] (nh) (Entered: 06/21/2001)
16 PROTECTIVE order by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds regarding confidential discovery material [EOD Date: 7/24/01] (jg) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
17 PROOF of service of preliminary witness list via facsimile and regular first class mail. (cf) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
18 MOTION by plaintiff and defendants to amend the scheduling order ; with brief (dp) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
19 ORDER by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds granting motion to amend the scheduling order by Ford Mtr Co, Visteon Corp, EEOC [18-1], and setting deadline for expert witness reports for 4/15/02 , setting deadline for discovery for 6/15/02 , setting deadline for filing dispositive motions for 7/15/02 , setting deadline for final pretrial order for 10/17/02 , setting final pretrial conference for 2:00 10/24/02 , setting trailing trial docket for 9:00 11/5/02 [EOD Date 11/6/01] (cm) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
20 CONSENT judgment entered by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds and agreed to by Visteon Corp, Ford Mtr Co, EEOC, [EOD Date: 7/17/02] (lg) (Entered: 07/17/2002)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/05/2007 12:56:01

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

eeoc 2:00-cv-74344-NGE 0.16

4 of 4

6/5/2007 11:55 AM