FILED
¯ . " 7 ;~. ’~-; 0.=- " .... v ,, ~.,n
IN THE UNITED STATES DIsTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISIO~ ,.c.-[p 30 ~ 2:21

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, I0 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21201
Plaintiff,
Vo
PAUL HALL CENTER FOR MARITIME TRAINING AND EDUCATION, P.O. Box 75, Route 249 45353 St. George’s Avenue Piney Point, MD 20674-0075
and
SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, 5201 Auth Way Camp Springs, MD 20746-4275,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age

and to provide appropriate relief to Steve Rappolee ("Charging

Party"), those individuals named on Exhibit A, attached hereto,

and other aggrieved individuals at least age 40 who were

discouraged from applying and/or refused admission into

Defendants’ unlicensed apprenticeship program because of their

age. The Commission alleges that since at least May 8, 1996,

Defendants have discouraged individuals at least 40 years of age

from applying for admission and refused to admit individuals at

least 40 years of age into their unlicensed apprenticeship program because they were "too old."

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

i.

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 Section 7(b) of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.

§ 626(b) (the "ADEA"), which incorporates by reference 16(c) and

Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"),

as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217.

2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland, 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 the ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b). of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.

4.

At all relevant times, Defendant, Paul Hall Center for

Maritime Training and Education (the "Employer"),has continuously

been doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of

Piney Point, and has continuously had at least 20 employees.

2

5.

At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has

continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting

commerce within the meaning of Sections ll b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).

6.

At all relevant times, Defendant Seafarers

International Union (the "Union") has contlnuously been a labor

organization which negotiates with and maintains arrangements

with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, has

continuously had at least 25 members, and has continuously

maintained a hiring hall or hiring office which procures

employees for an employer or procures for employees opportunities to work for an employer.

7.

At all relevant times, Defendant Union has continuously

been a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting

commerce within the meaning of Sections ll(d) and (e) of the

ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(d) and (e) .

CONCILIATION

8.

Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission’s

representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment

practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with

the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference and

persuasion within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29

U.S.C. § 626(b) .

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

9.

Since at least May 8, 1996, the Defendant Employer has

engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Piney Point,

Maryland facility, in violation of Section 4(a) of the ADEA, 29

U.S.C. § 623(a) (i) . The practices include discouraging from

applying and/or refusing to admit into Defendants’ unlicensed

apprenticeship program because of their age Charging Party, those

individuals named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and other individuals at least age 40 years who expressed interest in the

program.

i0. Since at least May 8, 1996, the Defendant Union has

engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Camp Springs, Maryland facility, in violation of Section 4(c) of the ADEA, 29

U.S.C. § 623(c) . The practices include discouraging from

applying and/or refusing to admit into Defendants’ unlicensed

apprenticeship program because of their age Charging Party, those

individuals named on Exhibit A attached hereto, and other

individuals at least age 40 who expressed interest in the program

Ii. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs

9 and I0 above has been to deprive Charging Party, all those

individuals named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and other individuals at least age 40 who expressed an interest in the

apprenticeship program of equal employment opportunities and

otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants for

employment, because of their age.

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in

paragraphs 9 and i0 above were and are willful within the meaning

of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) . PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this

Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant
Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in the discouragement and rejection of qualified applicants at least age 40 and any other employment practice which discriminates on the

basis of age against individuals 40 years of age and older.

B.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Union,

its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in the discouragement and rejection of qualified applicants at least age 40 and any other employment practice which discriminates on the

basis of age against individuals 40 years of age and older.

C.

Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out

policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment

opportunities for individuals 40 years of age and older, and

which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful

employment practices.

D.

Order Defendant Union to institute and carry out

policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment

opportunities for individuals 40 years of age and older, and

which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful

employment practices.

E.

Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Employer to pay

appropriate back wages in an amount to be determined at trial, an

equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest to

individuals whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result

of the acts complained of above, including but not limited to

Charging Party, those individuals named on Exhibit A, attached

hereto, and those individuals at least age 40 years who expressed

an interest in the program and were discouraged from applying

and/or rejected for admission.

F.

Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Union to pay

appropriate back wages in an amount to be determined at trial, an

equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest to

individuals whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result

of the acts complained of above, including but not limited to

Charging Party, those individuals named on Exhibit A, attached

hereto, and those individuals at least age 40 years who expressed

an interest in the program and were discouraged from applying

and/or rejected for admission.

G.

Order Defendant Employer to make whole all individuals

adversely affected by the unlawful practices described above, by

providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the

effects of its unlawful practices, including but not limited to

the rightful-place hiring of Charging Party, those individuals

named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and those individuals at

least age 40 years who expressed an interest in the program and

were discouraged from applying and/or rejected for admission,

and/or provide front pay where appropriate.

H.

Order Defendant Union to make whole all individuals

adversely affected by the unlawful practices described above, by

providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the

effects of its unlawful practices, including but not limited to

the rightful-place hiring of Charging Party, those individuals

named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and those individuals at least age 40 years who expressed an interest in the program and

were discouraged from applying and/or rejected for admission,

and/or provide front pay where appropriate.

I.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary

and proper in the public interest.

J.

Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEM~D The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

Respectfully submitted,
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

{~i,@.~"eg’i°na] {Attorney De~.~--M .~ .~__.W-~C ~j \. Supervisory Trial Attorney Mari~’ "M~rocco Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION i0 S. Howard Street 3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201
8

EXHIBIT A

1

Walter W. Anderson

2

Robert L. Bell

3

David Beust

4

Alfred F. Bierlair

5

Douglas. Bigelow

6

Lorraine A. Bigelow

7

Lilton V. Carter

8

Gerardo A.. Cerrato

9

Dale C. Chambers

i0 David F. Chisholm

ii John M. Clowney

12 Kathy J. Conner

13 Michael D. Daguio

14 Jonas Davis

15 Donald A. Dittmer, Jr.

16 Geoffrey R. Dixon

17 Jeffrey C. Felber

18 Lorilynne Franc

19 Mason J. Green

20 Michael J. Hogentogler

21 Jimmy Lee Jones

22 Karl S. King

23 Herschel E. Kirkland

24 John C. Kizner

25 Victor R. LaTorre

26 Francisco V. Martinez

27 James J. Meadowcraft, Jr.

28 Patrick Miller

29 Frank A. Moore

30 William E. Patterson, II

31 Pedro A. Maurice

32 Dana F. Pepin

33 Jose Perez

34 Robert R. Price

35 Michael A. Razmek

36 Ismael Cabassa Ruiz

37 Gerardo Salazar

38 Sherrond Sherrond

39 Richard M. Smith

4O Thomas W. Strother

41 Kevin P. Tillett

42 Ronald R. Webb

43 Richard Ben Wurth

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
* Plaintiff
* vs.
* PAUL HALL CENTER FOR MARITIME TRAINING AND EDUCATION, et al.

*
CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-02-3192 *

Defendants

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Court has before it Defendant Paul Hall Center for

Maritime Training and Education’s Motion to Dismiss [Paper 3],

Seafarers International Union’s Motion to Dismiss [Paper 4],

and the materials submitted by the parties related thereto.

The Court finds a hearing unnecessary.

I. BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“Plaintiff” or “EEOC”) is an agency of the United States
charged with the administration, interpretation, and
enforcement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
1 In the present context, it is necessary to assume that the Plaintiff’s version of the disputed facts is correct. Also, as we are at the dismissal stage, the Court shall only consider facts alleged in the pleadings and shall disregard the additional evidence which the parties have attached to their pleadings.

(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §626 et seq. The EEOC is expressly authorized to bring the underlying action pursuant to §7(b) of the ADEA. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the EEOC attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged in the Complaint and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion within the meaning of §7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §626(b).
Defendant Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education (“the Center”) is an employer doing business in the State of Maryland and employing at least 20 persons. The Center has, at all times relevant hereto, been an employer engaged in industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §§11(b), (g), and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§630(b), (g), and (h). The Seafarers Harry Lundeberg School of Seamanship (“the School”) is one of several “schools” run out of the Center.
Defendant Seafarers International Union (“the Union”) is a labor organization which negotiates with and maintains arrangements with employers concerning the terms and conditions of employment. (The Center and the Union are collectively referred to as “Defendants.”) The Union has, at all times relevant hereto, had at least 25 members and
2

continuously maintained a hiring hall or hiring office which facilitates employment between employers and members. The Union has, at all times relevant hereto, been a labor organization engaged in industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §§ 11(d) and (e) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(d) and (e).
The Center and the School, in collaboration with the Union, operate the Unlicensed Apprentice Program (“the Program”). The Program is a quasi-military program during which students live in dormitories, wear uniforms, and march from class to class. There are three phases to the Program: a ninety day, physically demanding vocational course focusing on maritime organization, basic seamanship, emergency action, and social responsibility; twelve weeks of shipboard training; and seven weeks of specialized training based on the student’s department of choice.
Beginning no later than April 8, 1996, applicants ages 40 and above, including the Charging Party and other individuals who applied, were discouraged from applying and/or denied admission based on their age. To be admitted to the Program, applicants had to be between the ages of seventeen and thirtyfive. The Defendants admit that this was standard practice
3

during the relevant time period but have since eliminated the age requirement.
II. LEGAL STANDARD A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is a means of
testing the legal sufficiency of a complaint. "The question is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the Complaint states any valid claim for relief." 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 at 336 (2d ed. 1987). The Court, when deciding a motion to dismiss, must consider well-pled allegations in a complaint as true and must construe those allegations in favor of the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,236 (1974); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411,421-22 (1969). The Court must further disregard the contrary allegations of the opposing party. See A.S. Abell Co. v. Chell, 412 F.2d 712,715 (4th Cir. 1969). However, a complaint may be dismissed if the law does not support the conclusions argued, or where the facts alleged are not sufficient to support the claim presented.
4

III. DISCUSSION A. Seafarers International Union The Union contends that it is a separate entity from the
School, never operated the Program, and played no role in establishing the age requirement at issue. Therefore, the Union contends that it is not a proper party to this action.
The EEOC contends that the Union was significantly involved in the creation of the School, that the Center and the School were named after members of the Union, and that the purpose of the Center is to “provide vocational training for SIU Members.” The EEOC further contends that the Union was actively involved in the operation of the Center and the School by advertising on its website, seating Union representatives on the School's “Apprenticeship Review Board” which governs the School’s rules and regulations on standards of dress and conduct, appointing six persons from the Union to the School’s Trust (“the Trust”), and negotiating terms including types of work and hours, compensation, and transportation for apprentices.
The Trust has the power to change the School’s rules and regulations and to hear appeals from persons whose applications for benefits were denied. One of the six Union trustees is the Director of Admissions for the School, and the
5

principal office of the Trust is housed at a Union office.

Finally, rejection letters to persons who were not admitted to

the Program because of age were sent out on the Union’s

letterhead. Pl.’s Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss at 10-11.

In

the dismissal context, factual disputes must be resolved in

the non-moving party’s (the EEOC’s) favor. Furthermore, as

the Southern District of New York has held, whether

“defendants constituted an integrated enterprise for the

purpose of administering and controlling the Apprenticeship

Program is a fact-based question that cannot be answered

before plaintiff has had discovery.” Streeter v. Joint

Industry Board of the Electrical Industry, et. al., 767

F.Supp. 520, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Accordingly, the claims

against the Union Shall not be dismissed.

B. ADEA Coverage of Apprenticeship Programs
The ADEA provides, in pertinent part, that
It shall be unlawful for an employer–
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age;
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or
6

tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age...
###
It shall be unlawful for a labor organization--
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's age;
(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.
29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(c).
The ADEA does not explicitly include or exclude
apprenticeship programs from coverage. However, the EEOC was
empowered by Congress to “issue such rules and regulations as
it may consider necessary or appropriate for carrying out this
chapter, and may establish such reasonable exemptions to and
from any or all provisions of this chapter as it may find
necessary and proper in the public interest.” 29 U.S.C. §628.
In regard to apprenticeship programs, the EEOC has reversed
its original agency position.
7

In a 1981 interpretive regulation, 29 C.F.R. §1625.13,
the EEOC stated that bona fide apprenticeship programs were
not covered by the ADEA. In 1987, the EEOC reaffirmed 29
C.F.R. §1625.13 stating,
The Commission has determined, after careful reassessment of the statutory language of the ADEA, the Act's legislative history, related statutes and case law, and a thorough examination of the history of apprenticeship programs, that Congress when enacting the ADEA did not intend to subject bona fide apprenticeship programs to the prohibitions of the Act. Accordingly, it is the Commission's view that § 1625.13 clearly embodies the intent of Congress and therefore should remain in full force and effect.
52 FR 33809-01 (Sept. 8, 1987).
However, on April 8, 1996, the EEOC issued an
interpretive regulation, 29 C.F.R. §1625.21, which states,
All apprenticeship programs, including those apprenticeship programs created or maintained by joint labor-management organizations, are subject to the prohibitions of sec. 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 623.
The Supreme Court has “long recognized that considerable
weight should be accorded to an executive department's
construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to
administer, and the principle of deference to administrative
interpretations has been consistently followed....” Chevron
8

USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837,
844 (1984).
If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.
Id. at 843-844.
Defendants have moved for dismissal of the instant
lawsuit on numerous grounds. Their core rationale is that 29
C.F.R. §1625.21 is an invalid regulation. Defendants argue
that the EEOC is not entitled to deference in this case
because the regulation promulgated in 29 C.F.R. §1625.21 is an
attempt to broaden the scope of the ADEA rather than an
adjustment to the ADEA exemption policy set forth in 29 C.F.R.
§1625.13. Defendants further argue that the EEOC should be
bound by 29 C.F.R. 1625.13 and the underlying rationale which
exempted apprenticeship programs from ADEA coverage because 29
C.F.R. §1625.21 is contradictory. Finally, Defendants argue
that statutory interpretation would invalidate 29 C.F.R.
9

§1625.21 because “the prohibitions of the ADEA were derived in haec verba from Title VII,” which explicitly states that discrimination with regard to apprenticeship programs is forbidden. Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 584 (1978). Because there is no such explicit language in the ADEA, Defendants argue that Congressional silence on the issue indicates a legislative intent to exempt apprenticeship programs from ADEA coverage.
Plaintiff argues that §1625.21 is an interpretive regulation and is merely a reconsideration of §1625.13. As the agency charged with interpreting and issuing regulations concerning the ADEA, the EEOC argues that it is entitled to deference and that its regulation should be upheld.
Plaintiff contends that Congress’ silence as to apprenticeship programs indicates an unwillingness to exempt those programs from the ADEA, noting that there are specific exemptions explicitly set forth in the ADEA.2 Additionally, Plaintiff notes that the legislative history of the ADEA shows
2 Section (f) of the ADEA deals with “Lawful practices; age and occupational qualification; other reasonable factors; laws of foreign workplace; seniority system; employee benefit plans; discharge or discipline for good cause.” These areas are exempted from ADEA coverage.
10

that Congress looked to state age discrimination laws, some of which exempted and some of which did not exempt apprenticeship programs. There is no reference to any intent to exempt apprenticeship programs in the legislative history. Plaintiff further contends that Congress’ silence on an apprenticeship exemption within the context of those exemptions Congress chose to make explicit and the lack of discussion of any such exemption in the legislative history is a signal of Congress’ intent not to exempt apprenticeship programs from ADEA coverage.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that, even if Defendant were correct that §1625.21 was an improper regulation, the prior interpretive regulation (§1625.13) only exempted bona fide apprenticeship programs. Notably, in its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant quoted language from the Department of Labor discussing the now defunct §1625.13 which states that “Congress when enacting the ADEA did not intend to subject bona fide apprenticeship programs to the prohibitions of the Act.” Def. M. to Dismiss at 4 (quoting 52 Fed. Reg. 33809)(emphasis added). The Program at issue herein is not a bona fide apprenticeship program under 29 C.F.R. §§521.2 and 521.3. Therefore, Plaintiff argues, even if §1625.13 were to be applied, Defendants’ program, not being a bona fide
11

apprenticeship program, would not have been exempt. In response, Defendant argues that §§521.2 and 521.3 cannot be incorporated into the ADEA and that it was Congress’ intent to exempt all apprenticeship programs from the ADEA.
The parties have not presented any decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressing the treatment of apprenticeship programs under the ADEA. "Accordingly, because this issue presents an important and difficult question of first impression within this circuit and [] involves an issue which may not be appropriate for resolution at the pleading stage," the Court shall deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Woodson v. US Airways, Inc., 67 F.Supp 554, 557 (M.D.N.C. 1999).
The Court notes that there appear to be substantial unresolved legal questions of whether there is an exemption from the ADEA for apprenticeship programs, whether any such exemption would be limited to "bona fide" apprenticeship programs, and the definition of such programs. Thus, the Court would consider a motion for certification of such questions for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). The Court will not, however, stay or delay this case pending any such interlocutory appellate process.
12

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons: 1. Defendant Seafarers International Union’s Motion to Dismiss [Paper 4] is DENIED. 2. Defendant Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education’s Motion to Dismiss [Paper 3] DENIED. 3. By May 16, 2003, Plaintiff shall arrange a conference with the Court to arrange the scheduling or further proceedings herein. 4. Any party may, by May 26, 2003, seek certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). SO ORDERED, Wednesday, April 30, 2003. /s/ ______________________________ Marvin J. Garbis United States District Judge
13

 
 Case 1:02-cv-03192-MJG

r-: C"
1

L! ~_ ....

S ;-;: C-, t.:. :~~. [;

''c I"'

S t :'>~JCT ,:~ I,', I'.

Document 63

Filed 11/14/2005

Page 1 of 13

1:\ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF !v1ARYLA1'\O

EQl;AL E\lPLOY!v!E~T OPPORTl';\11'1' CO\1\llSS10~

Plaintift:

v.

PAUL HALL CENTER FOR MARITIME TRAINING AND EDUCATION et al.

Defendants.

>.'

*

* *

*

Civil Action 1'\0. t-.tTG-02-CV-3192
*

*

* *

*

*

CO:\SENT DECREE

This action \vas instituted by PiaintitT, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

,
~.

Commission (the "EEOC" or the "Commission"), against Defendants Paul Ha1J Center for

:"1aritime Training and Education (lithe Center") and Seafarers International t:nion I,"the

lil:ic)J1"). dleging that "Defendants have discouraged indi\iduals at Ieasl 4;) year~ of age from
<lpplyjI1~ l~,.Jr admission and n:t'used to admil indiyiduab a'. least ..W years 0,' :1::';; int(, th<;i~
t:l~1icenscd apprenticeship program" because of such individuals' age. and h.\\c lh;:~eby vi(llatcL!
the Age Discrimin:llion ill Employment Act of 196;, as am~nded, (".-\Dr:.;··i. Tht: cDl::pb:r:!
•
sought relief 011 bella1ro!': (a) SkYe Rappolee: (b) the 43 other persons Ilst.:d on Exhibit A to :11('

complaint: and (C} other aggrieved individuals at least age 40 wby \\ere discoura,"cd f~om

applying :.ll1d O[ 1\.'fuscJ admission into Defendants" unlicensed apprenticeship program bCCIUSC of their :.igC'. Defendants deny the Commission's allegations.

Case 1:02-cv-03192-MJG Document 63 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 2 of 13

time and expense of continued litigation, and they desire to formulate a plan to be embodied in a

Decree that will promote and effectuate the purposes of the ADEA.

The Court has examined this Decree and linds that it is reasonable and just and in

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ADEA. Therefore, upon due

consideration of the record herein and having been fully advised of thc premises, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

Scope 0 f Decree

1. This Decree resolves all issues and discharges all claims in the Complaint filed by the

Commission in this ADEA action. which emanated from the Charge of Discrimination herein,

1\0. 120-A 1-0375. or all issues and claims \vhich could have been raised or made by the Commission in this litigation; including but not limited to

t ·'.i

a) the claim set forth in Charge No. 120-A 1-0375;

b) the claims of the 43 other persons named in Exhibit A attached to the Commission's

complaint;

c) the claims of all persons who, at the time the complaint was filed. were "aggrieved

individuals at least age 4() \vho had been discouraged from applying and/or refused

admission into Defendants' unlicensed apprenticeship program because oft~eir age;"

d) the claims of the persons whom the Commission named during discovery as persons

on \\'hose behalf the agency would seek relief;

e) the claims of all aggrie\·ed indi\·iduals \\'ho. as ofJOO days prior to the date this decree

is entered. had allegedly been discriminated agai:1st by the Center or the LTnion on the
basis of their age a~ a lime when th!;y were at least 40 years old anc

Case 1:02-cv-03192-MJG Doc.ument 63 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 3 of 13
1) the claims of all persons Defendants identified during discovery as seeking infonnation
regarding. expressing an interest in, or applying to the unlicensed apprenticeship program. This discharge of claims is not contingent upon either the execution or efficacy of any Release sought from individual claimants pursuant to therv10nctary Relief section below,
2, This Decree shall be in effect for a period of five years from the date that it is entered
by the Court. During that time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties
for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be
required to effectuate the purposes of the Decree, 3. This Decree, being entered with the consent of EEOC and Defendants, shall not I
constirute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case or an admission by any party ci~ the facts or the law relating thereto.
\.1onetarv Relief 4, Defendants shall pay S()25.0(lO to resolve this action, The total shal1 he distributed to Eligible Claimants as defined in Paragraph 5 below and whose nanles, current addresses and amounts payable to each will be fumishcd by the Commission to Defendants within 90 calendar
- days of the d~He of entry of the Consent Decree. provided. ho\\'c\"er. that payment t(l an Eligibk
Claimant is conditioned upon (a) receipt of a fully executed and notarized Release. a copy of \\'hich is appended as AttJchrnent A. and (b) the expiration of tile dcadlil~c ior re\ocation of any such Relea.se. All of the monetary relief paid to the Eligible Claimants pursuant to this Decree is acknowledged to be compensation under tll.: ,~\ DEA for amounts \\hich cbim:ll11S pClrportcdly \\ould ha\'c earned [rmy. shipbo:m: jobs if training opportunities ior such work allegedly haJ not

Case 1:02-cv-03192-MJG Document 63 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 4 of 13

been denied them by the Defendants.

5. "Eligible Claimants" are defined as those individuals who, \\"ithin the discretion of the

Commission, are entitled to a monetary recovery, the amount of which will be detennined by the

Commission.

6. Within one hundred eighty (180) days of the entry ofth1s Decree, each Eligible

Claimant will execute and deliver to EEOC a fully executed and notarized Release, a copy of

which is appended hereto as Attachment A, which will ha\'c been mailed to each Eligible

Claimant by EEOC. \Vithin twenty (20) days after the expiration of this period for providing

releases, EEOC shall forward the collected Releases to Defendants. Within twenty (20) days

after the receipt of the collected Releases. Defendants shall mail a check 10 each Eligible

t

Claimant from whom a fully executed and notarized Release has been obtained and which ha~

not been revoked. The checks shall be mailed to the current address provided by the
'. Commission for each Eligible Claimant. and Defendants will cause to be issued timely Cnited
Statcs lnternal Revcoue Fon11S 1099 to all Eligiblc Claimants for ali sllch payments. Within ten

business days of payTI1Cm to each Eligible Claimant, Defendants will submit a copy of each

check and any related correspondencc with the Eligible Claimants to the EEOC. Baltimore

District Office, 10 S. Howard Stred, r J Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21201.

•

7. Dcfendants shall promptly notify the EEOC's Baltimore District Officc in \\Tning if

any checks issued to Eligible Claimants are returned or are not cashed after a period of sixty
calendar days has elapsed aile, being mailed. Dcfe:1dants shall specifically identify the names or

those Eligible Claimants whose checks are rdurncJ or not cashed. and EEOC will then arrange

tn have ar:y returned check re-delivered or to ba\~ any outst~mding check cashed by the Eligible

· Case 1:02-cv-03192-MJG Document 63 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 5 of 13

Claimant within 180 days from its original issuance. If at the end of that 180 day period. any

checks still remain undelivered andlor uncashed, Defendants will have the checks voided and the

total amount of the voided checks \\'i11 be contributed to the Sailors' Snug Harbor Trust, P.O Box

99, Sea Level, KC. 28577 for the care ofretired mariners.

Injunctive Relief

8. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons acting or

claiming to act in its behalf and interest hereby agree to comply with the ADEA and the

Commission's regulation governing apprenticeship programs, 29 C.F.R. § 1625.21, and agree in

this Decree to be enjoined, and arc enjoined, from:

a) imposing any upper age limit in recmiting app1icants for or admitting

applicants to the apprenticeship program;

.... I

b) discriminating, on the basis of their age, against persons 40 or more years old

who are inquiring about the program or applying to enter it;

c) discouraging, on the basis of their age. inquirers or applicants \vl1o are 40 or

more years old from applying for or entering the program: or

d) discriminating. on the basis of their age, against persons 40 or more years old

who are enrolled in the program.

-

9. Defendants agree that they will includc, or continue to include, in all thcir written and

electronic recruiting and admissions materials for the unlicensed apprenticeship program, a

swtement that the Center does not discrimin:1tc on the basis of age in recruiting app!ica:lls for or

admitting them to the apprenticeship program. The statement does 110t have to be limited to age.

and may include other bases for discrimination. such as race, na:ionai origir.. sex and dis:loility.

5

Case 1:02-cv-03192-MJG Document 63 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 6 of 13
The statement will appear al least once, in a font size at least as large as the font size of the majority ofth~ text, in each brochure or ncwsletter describing the program, in each application fom1 for the program, and in each set 0f related web pages published by the Defendants dcscribing the program.
10. Defendants will provide, within 90 days after this Decree is entered, no fewer than three hours of training in the federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment (with a special focus on the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of age and the Center's obligations under paragraph 8 of this Decree) for all current managers and employees responsibk for recruiting. screening, andior admitting new apprentice program participants, and for all supcr.·isors who oversee those employees. This training shall be conducted by an outside
I consultant or law firm approved by the EEOC, which approval shall not be unreasonably .....,... withheld, and \vhich may include the law fimlS serving as defense counsel in this litigation. Within 15 business days ofpro\"iding sllch a training session, Defendants will furnish lhe EEOC's counsel of record \\ilh a signed attendance list, the da:e and dura:ion of the training. unJ a certification th:1t Defendants ha\"e completed the mandatory trainin.:;.
11. For the duration ortne (kcree. the Defendants shaH pro\ide three hours of training: to
- all :1e\\ ly hired managers and employees responsible for ree-miting. screening and/or adn:itting
Ill'\\ apprentice program participants. and to all newly hired supervisors who oversee those employees. Such training shall coyer the same subjects as in paragraph 10. but need not b;.' provided by an outside consultant. und may include videolape or other forn:s of recorded pn':s;.'!1t:.Illons. This training wi!] be conducted within 9G days ail~, the newly hired person begins working :or the Center. Defendants will notify the EEOC of the trainin~ and of the l1amc[sj of
6

I
Case 1:02-cv-03192-MJG Document 63 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 7 of 13

the person[s] trained in the once yearly reports referenced in paragraph 13 belo\',:.

Notice Posting

12. Within ten days after entry of this Decree. Defendants will post the Kotice atlached

hereto (Attachment B) in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted at its

facilities. The Notice shall be posted and maintained for the duration of the Decree and shall be

signed by Paul Hall Center's Training Director, William Eglinton, and Seafarers International

Union's Controller, Margaret Bowen, with the date of the actual posting ShO\\l1 thereon. Should

the Notice become defaced, marred, or otherwise made unreadable. Defendants will ensure that

new readable copies of the Notice are posted in the same manner as heretofore specified. Within

thirty days of entr.Y of the Decree. Defendants shall forward to the EEOC's Baltimore District I
Office, a copy of the signed Notice and written certification that the ~otice referenced hereirMlas

been posted and a statement of the location(s) and date ofposting.

Reponin!!

'.

13. Eyery 365 days following the entry of this Consent Decree, and continuing

throughout the life of the Dt!crec. Defendants \\ill submit to the Commission's counsel ofrccord

(a) the names and dates of birth of each individual who submitted booklet applicatIons to the
- unlicenscd apprentice program and (b) the namcs and dates ofbinb of each individual who was
. admitted into the unlicensed apprentice program.

1-+, The Commission and Defendants shall bcar their own costs and attomcys' fees.

15, In the e\'cnt that the Commission believes that either Defendant has failed to comply

with any pro\'ision(s) ofthi5 Decree. it shall notify the relevant party by h-x and by oycmight mail and afford the Defendant ~5 business days aflcr service "r'sl:ch not1ce to r:::meJy the allegeJ

Case 1:02-cv-03192-MJG Document 63 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 8 of 13

non-compliance before scckingjudiciaJ enforcement ofthis Decree. 16. The undersigned counsel ofrccord in the above-captioned action hereby consent, on
behal f of their respective clients, to the entry or the foregoing Consent D~cree.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

FOR PLATho"TTFF:

James L. Lee Acting General Counsel

Training & Education MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC 10 Light Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202-1487 (410) 727-6464
Theresa M. Conno y Counsel for Seafarers International Union DLA prPER RUD~ICK GRAY CARY US LLP 1775 Wichlc A\"cnuc. Suite 400 Reston. VA 20190 (703) 773- 4007

Gwendolyn Young Reams

Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

CO\1i\nSSIO~

1801 L Street, N.W.

I

Washingto~ D.C. 20547

(102) '663-4900

!
/
, I

"

Supervisory Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMEl'T OPPORTLl\1TY
CO~1MlSSIOl\
Baltimore District Oflicc 1() S. Howard Street. 3d Floor B3ltimore. \lD 21201 (41 Q) 962-4349
•

! j
-----------~--
~laria Salacusc Trial Attorney EQCAL E~fPLOY.\tlE~T OPPORTl':-,'lTY CO\[vtISS IO\: Baltimore District Office I () S. Howard Street, 3d Floor Baltimore. ~1D 21201 (-\ I U) 962-43-1-1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT,OPPORTUNITY

.' COMMISSION' , '

,

,'Baltlni6te .nisllidOffice '
.',] 0S:'HoWard street; ~d Floor· .
Balt~m0rt?iMP ~1201

(410) %24207,

: \'

"'"

-

9

"so c:)'fiDERED.
Signed and entered this 14 day of November

,2005.

.'~
•
10

 
 District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?117398582849005-L_3...

CASREF, CLOSED
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-03192-MJG

EEOC v. Paul Hall Center, et al Assigned to: Judge Marvin J. Garbis Referred to: Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner Demand: $0 Cause: 29:626 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 09/30/2002 Date Terminated: 02/16/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Gerald S Kiel US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624207 Fax: 14109624270 Email: gerald.kiel@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria Salacuse U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Baltimore Field Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092733 Fax: 14109624341 Email: maria.salacuse@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Debra Michele Lawrence U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092734 Fax: 14109624270 Email: debra.lawrence@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gwendolyn Young Reams

1 of 9

5/31/2007 9:48 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report
V. Defendant Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education
2 of 9

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?117398582849005-L_3...
U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624260 Fax: 14109622817
Maria Luisa Morocco US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092730 Fax: 14109624270 Email: maria.morocco@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kathleen Pontone Miles and Stockbridge PC 10 Light St Baltimore, MD 21202-1487 14107276464 Fax: 14103853700 Email: kpontone@milesstockbridge.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa F Orenstein 823 Sharp St Baltimore, MD 21046 14109531000 Fax: 14109535207 Email: lorenstein@milesstockbridge.com TERMINATED: 03/20/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony W Kraus Miles and Stockbridge PC 10 Light St Baltimore, MD 21202-1487 14107276464 Fax: 14103853700 Email: akraus@milesstockbridge.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
5/31/2007 9:48 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?117398582849005-L_3...

Defendant Seafarers International Union

Christian Levine Simpson Miles and Stockbridge PC 10 Light St Baltimore, MD 21202-1487 14103853638 Fax: 14103853700 Email: csimpson@milesstockbridge.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theresa M Connolly DLA Piper US LLP 1775 Wiehle Ave Ste 400 Reston, VA 20190 17037734000 Fax: 17037735000 Email: theresa.connolly@dlapiper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul A Mallos DLA Piper US LLP 6225 Smith Ave Baltimore, MD 21209-3600 14105803000 Fax: 14105803202 Email: paul.mallos@dlapiper.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/30/2002 09/30/2002 10/01/2002 10/30/2002
10/30/2002 11/15/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT and exhibit filed; (raf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
1 DEMAND for jury trial by EEOC (raf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
2 SUMMONS(ES) (20 days) issued for Paul Hall Center, Seafarers (raf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
3 MOTION with memorandum in support by Paul Hall Center to Dismiss Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2002)
4 MOTION with memorandum in support by Seafarers to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and exhibits 1,2 and 3. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2002)
5 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [4-1] motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint by Seafarers, [3-1] motion to Dismiss Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education by Paul Hall Center and exhibits 1-20. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2002)

3 of 9

5/31/2007 9:48 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?117398582849005-L_3...

11/26/2002
12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/12/2002 01/14/2003 01/15/2003 01/22/2003 01/29/2003 01/30/2003 01/30/2003 01/30/2003 02/03/2003 04/30/2003
05/12/2003 05/12/2003

6 STIPULATION AND ORDER for filing reply of defendant Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training to Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants separate motions to dismiss is extended to 12/9/02; the time for filing of reply of defendant Seafarers International Union to Plaintiff's oppositon to Defendants separate motions to dismiss is extended to 12/9/02. ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis 11/26/02) (c/i 11/26/02) (c/m) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
7 REPLY by Seafarers to response to [4-1] motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint by Seafarers and exhibit 1. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
8 REPLY by Paul Hall Center to response to [3-1] motion to Dismiss Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education by Paul Hall Center and exhibits 1-4. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Paul Hall Center, Seafarers 10/11/02 Answer due on 10/31/02 for Seafarers, for Paul Hall Center (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
10 MOTION by EEOC for Leave to File surreply and exhibits 1-4. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
11 ORDER granting [10-1] motion of plaintiff for Leave to File surreply ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis 1/14/03 ) (c/i 1/15/03) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
12 CORRESPONDENCE by Paul Hall Center, Seafarers requesting hearing on pending motions. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
13 CONSENT MOTION by Paul Hall Center for Leave to File defendant's response to EEOC's Surreply of 1/14/03 and proposed Surreply, and exhibit A and B. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
14 ORDER granting [13-1] motion of defendant Paul Hall Center for Leave to File defendant's response to EEOC's Surreply of 1/14/03 ( signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis 1/30/03) (c/i 1/30/03) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
15 SURREPLY by EEOC to [3-1] motion to Dismiss Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education by Paul Hall Center (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
16 RESPONSE by Paul Hall Center to [15-1] Surreply by EEOC and exhibits A and B.(c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
**Renotice document [14-1] order (cem, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
17 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying [3] Motion of Paul Hall Center to Dismiss, denying [4] Motion of Seafarers International to Dismiss; DIRECTING plaintiff by 5/16/03 arrange a conference with the Court. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 4/30/03. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/01/2003)
18 ANSWER to Complaint by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education.(Kraus, Anthony) (Entered: 05/12/2003)
19 ANSWER to Complaint by Seafarers International Union.(Mallos, Paul) (Entered: 05/12/2003)

4 of 9

5/31/2007 9:48 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?117398582849005-L_3...

05/15/2003 05/16/2003 05/20/2003 06/05/2003
06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003
06/26/2003 06/26/2003 07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/11/2003 08/04/2003
08/04/2003

Telephone Conference held before Judge Marvin J. Garbis. (hbm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
20 ORDER in accordance with the proceedings held in this matter on this date of 5/15/03. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 5/15/03. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
21 NOTICE to Substitute Attorney (Kraus, Anthony) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
22 MOTION to Strike Defendant Paul Hall's June 4, 2003 Submission to the Court by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/23/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
23 Correspondence re: Clarification and Possible Modification of Scheduling Order (Pontone, Kathleen) Modified on 6/16/2003 (cag, Deputy Clerk) (filed in error, duplicate of document # 24). (Entered: 06/12/2003)
24 Correspondence re: Clarification and Possible Modification of Scheduling Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 6)(Pontone, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
25 NOTICE by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education of Manual Filing (Kraus, Anthony) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Strike June 4, 2003 Letter Addressing Scheduling Order filed by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education. Replies due by 6/26/2003. (Kraus, Anthony) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
27 STIPULATION Regarding Discovery Procedure by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education. (Pontone, Kathleen) Modified on 6/26/2003 (slf, Deputy Clerk).(Filed in Error) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
28 STIPULATION Regarding Discovery Procedure by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education. (Pontone, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
29 Correspondence re: Proposed Order of Stay (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Connolly, Theresa) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
Telephone Conference held before Judge Marvin J. Garbis (in Chambers). (mjl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
30 ORDER OF STAY. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 07/09/03. (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
31 CERTIFICATION ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Sec 1292(b); the Court's Order of April 30, 2003 satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec 1292(b). The said Order is amended to add: "This Order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation". Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 8/1/03. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL (See Pleading 31 Order), by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education, Filing fee $105.00, receipt

5 of 9

5/31/2007 9:48 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?117398582849005-L_3...

08/04/2003 09/03/2003 09/04/2003 09/04/2003 09/08/2003 09/10/2003
09/16/2003
09/17/2003
09/22/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003
10/06/2003 10/08/2003

#1197940. (ko, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 9/17/2003 (ko, Deputy Clerk). (ko, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 09/17/2003)
NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL (See pleading No. 31 Order), by Seafarers International Union. Filing fee $ 105, receipt number 1197941. (ko, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
32 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 22 Motion of plaintiff to Strike. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 9/2/03. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Christian Levine Simpson on behalf of Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education (Simpson, Christian) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
34 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education. Responses due by 9/22/2003 (Simpson, Christian) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
35 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 9/8/03. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/08/2003)
36 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education. Responses due by 9/29/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Amended Answer# 3 Amended Answer Highlighted# 4 Proposed Order)(Kraus, Anthony) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
37 STIPULATION By the Parties Pursuant to F.R.A.P. Rule 11(f) Concerning Partial Retention In the District Court of Record on Appeal by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education. (Attachments: # 1 Excerpt from Order of Judge Garbis)(Kraus, Anthony) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
38 ORDER of USCA CONSOLIDATING USCA#03-2057 and USCA#03-2058 for purposes of briefing and oral argument as to Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Seafarers International Union, Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education (c/s) (ko, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
39 STIPULATION Regarding Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education. (Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
40 RESPONSE re 36 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
41 ORDER, Granting re 39 Stipulation Regarding Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 9/29/03. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
42 Certificate of Clerk certifying the record is complete for appeal purposes re: Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (ko, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
43 Joint MOTION to Stay Additional Discovery & Filing of Dispositive Motions Pending Fourth Circuit Interlocutory Appeal by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 10/27/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed

6 of 9

5/31/2007 9:48 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?117398582849005-L_3...

10/09/2003 10/15/2003 01/10/2005
01/14/2005 02/08/2005 02/09/2005 02/09/2005 02/15/2005 02/16/2005 02/28/2005 03/02/2005 03/03/2005 03/09/2005

Order)(Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
44 ORDER granting 43Joint Motion for Stay of additional discovery & filing of dispositive motions pending Fourth Circuit Interlocutory Appeal. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 10/9/03.(c/m dtm) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
45 ORDER, Granting re 43 Joint MOTION to Stay Additional Discovery & Filing of Dispositive Motions Pending Fourth Circuit Interlocutory Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 10/15/03. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
46 JUDGMENT of USCA (certified copy) "Affirming" the judgment of the District Court "Remanding" case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion as to Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Seafarers International Union, Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education,, Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Seafarers International Union, (nrm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
47 Request for Conference (Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
Telephone Scheduling Conference held on 2/8/2005 held before Judge Marvin J. Garbis. (pat, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
48 ORDER granting 36 Motion of defendant for Leave to File Amended Answer. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 2/9/05. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
49 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education. (Attachments: # 1 hi -light copy of amended answer)(slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
50 Correspondence re: Proposed Scheduling Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
51 ORDER that the stay against the Union shall be lifted to allow plaintiff the opportunity to obtain discoverable information pertaining to its claim for damages as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 2/15/05. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
52 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Compel# 2 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel)(Kraus, Anthony) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
54 MANDATE of USCA as to Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Seafarers International Union, (nrm, Deputy Clerk) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/3/2005 (nrm, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 03/03/2005)
53 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner for Discovery. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 3/2/05. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
55 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 52 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion

7 of 9

5/31/2007 9:48 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?117398582849005-L_3...

03/10/2005 03/14/2005 03/15/2005 03/16/2005
03/17/2005
04/04/2005 04/18/2005 04/29/2005 05/04/2005 08/17/2005 11/14/2005 11/15/2005

to Compel# 2 Exhibit 1 (Admissions Requirements)# 3 Exhibit 2 (Application)# 4 Exhibit 3 (Baltimore Sun Article))(Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
56 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner for Settlement or other ADR conference. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 3/9/05. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
57 ORDER Setting a Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Beth P. Gesner on 3/14/05. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
58 Joint MOTION to Stay Discovery for 30 Days Pending Settlement Discussions by Seafarers International Union. Responses due by 4/1/2005 (Connolly, Theresa) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
59 ORDER granting 58 Joint Motion to Stay Discovery for 30 days pending Settlement Discussions. Ordered that discovery is stayed until April 11, 2005. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 3/16/05. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2005)
60 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education (Attachments: # 1 Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel# 2 Exhibit 1 to Reply)(Kraus, Anthony) (Entered: 03/17/2005)
Settlement Conference held on 4/4/2005 held before Judge Beth P. Gesner. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
Telephone Conference held on 4/18/2005 held before Judge Beth P. Gesner. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
61 Status Report Submitted Jointly by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
62 Correspondence re: confirmation of 2nd mediation session before Magistrate Judge Gesner (Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
Settlement Conference held on 8/17/2005 held before Judge Beth P. Gesner. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
63 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT /Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
64 CONSENT DECREE and APPROVAL. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 11/14/05. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2005)

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
05/31/2007 10:49:43

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

8 of 9

5/31/2007 9:48 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?117398582849005-L_3...

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages: 5

Search Criteria:
Cost:

1:02-cv-03192-MJG 0.40

9 of 9

5/31/2007 9:48 AM

 
 Maritime Training Facility & Union to Pay $625,000 for Age Bias in Ap...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-15-05.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, November 15, 2005

CONTACT:

Maria Salacuse Senior Trial Attorney (617) 565-4804 Debra Lawrence Supervisory Trial Attorney (410) 962-4349 Gerald S. Kiel Regional Attorney (410) 962-4207

MARITIME TRAINING FACILITY & UNION TO PAY $625,000 FOR AGE BIAS IN APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM
EEOC Charged Paul Hall Center and SIU with Rejecting Older Job Applicants
BALTIMORE -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a litigation settlement for $625,000 and comprehensive injunctive relief in an employment discrimination case against the Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education (Paul Hall Center) and Seafarers International (SIU) due to age bias in an apprenticeship program.
The apprenticeship program, which is based in Piney Point, Maryland, trains individuals wishing to become mariners in the U.S. Merchant Marine. Upon completion of the apprenticeship program, graduates are guaranteed jobs as unlicensed seamen onboard a SIU contracted vessel. EEOC asserted in the lawsuit that the Paul Hall Center and SIU refused to admit individuals at least 40 years old into the apprenticeship program in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). EEOC charged that applicants who were at least 40 were sent letters advising them that they “must be between the ages of 18 and 25” to apply. In addition, admissions representatives coded the applications of many of the individuals over 40, specifically noting they were “too old.”
The lawsuit was resolved following an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which challenged the validity of an EEOC regulation stating that apprenticeship programs are covered by the ADEA. On January 7, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that EEOC’s regulation was a valid extension of the ADEA. EEOC initially filed the suit (Civil Action MJG-02-3192) on September 30, 2002, in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.
Under the terms of a consent decree resolving the matter, entered by U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis on November 14, 2005, the Paul Hall Center and SIU have agreed to pay a total of $625,000 to be distributed to a class of individuals who were denied the opportunity to attend the apprenticeship program due to ageism.
In addition to the monetary relief, the Paul Hall Center and SIU have agreed to comply with the ADEA, which includes not imposing any upper age limit; posting a notice concerning prohibitions against discrimination; and training employees responsible for recruiting, screening and admitting new apprentice program participants in federal laws which prohibit discrimination. The Paul Hall Center and SIU have also agreed that its admission practices will be under continued monitoring by the EEOC for a period of five years.
“Employers must heighten their awareness to age discrimination and refrain from making age-based employment decisions,” said Gerald S. Kiel, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Baltimore District Office. “The age restriction in this case appears to have been based upon the stereotype that older individuals would not succeed in a physically and mentally demanding apprenticeship program. We are pleased that the age restriction has been lifted and that those individuals who were affected by this unlawful practice will be compensated.”
The EEOC is the federal agency charged with enforcing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of age. In addition, EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, pregnancy, sex and sexual harassment; the Equal Pay Act which prohibits discrimination in wages on the basis of sex; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and federal regulations which prohibit employment discrimination against people with disabilities; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.

1 of 2

5/31/2007 9:55 AM

Maritime Training Facility & Union to Pay $625,000 for Age Bias in Ap... This page was last modified on November 15, 2005. Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-15-05.html

2 of 2

5/31/2007 9:55 AM

 
 USCA4 Docket Sheet for 03-2058

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=03-2058&p...

General Docket
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 03-2058 Nsuit: 1442 Civil Rights: Jobs EEOC, et al v. Paul Hall Center, et al Appeal from: District of Maryland at Baltimore

Filed: 9/9/03

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lower court information:

District: 0416-1 : CA-02-3192-MJG Court Reporter: Kay Owens, coor Presiding Judge: Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge Date Filed: 9/30/02 Date order/judgment: 8/4/03 Date NOA filed: 9/8/03 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fee status: Paid

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prior cases:
03-0231 DGM HEW RBK Date filed: 8/15/03 Date disposed: 9/8/03 Disposition: order

Current cases:

Lead

Member

Start

End

Consolidated:

03- 2057 03- 2058 9/9/03

Trnsf from Misc. dkt:

03- 231 03- 2058 9/9/03

Docket as of September 7, 2006 0:06 am

Page 1

03-2058 EEOC, et al v. Paul Hall Center, et al

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff - Appellee

Carolyn L. Wheeler 202-633-4736 Room 7044 [OBR] Paul D. Ramshaw 202-663-4737 Room 7018 [COR LD NTC GVT] Eric Stefan Dreiband FAX 202-663-7045 202-663-4702 [COR GVT] U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Appellate Services 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507

Vincent J. Blackwood [OBR] U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of General Counsel Appellate Division 2401 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20507

1 of 7

5/31/2007 10:11 AM

USCA4 Docket Sheet for 03-2058

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=03-2058&p...

v.

PAUL HALL CENTER FOR MARITIME TRAINING AND EDUCATION
Defendant - Appellant

Kathleen Pontone 410-727-6464 [COR NTC RET] Anthony Walter Kraus 410-385-3756 [COR LD NTC RET] Christian L. Simpson FAX 410-385-3700 410-385-3638 [COR NTC RET] MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC 10 Light Street Baltimore, MD 21202-1487

SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Defendant

Paul Alexander Mallos FAX 410-580-3202 410-580-4202 [COR FIO] DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP 6225 Smith Avenue Baltimore, MD 21209-3600

Theresa Mannion Connolly

Docket as of September 7, 2006 0:06 am

Page 2

03-2058 EEOC, et al v. Paul Hall Center, et al

FAX 703-773-5007 703-773-4007 Suite 400 [COR FIO] DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP 1775 Wiehle Avenue Reston, VA 20190-5159

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

Docket as of September 7, 2006 0:06 am

Page 3

03-2058 EEOC, et al v. Paul Hall Center, et al

9/9/03

Civil case docketed. (jsj) [03-2058]

9/9/03

ORDER FILED [3851301] consolidating case 03-2058 with 03-2057 [3851301-1]. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3851301] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/9/03

Docketing notice issued. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3851307] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/22/03

Appearance form filed by Theresa Mannion Connolly for Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, Theresa Mannion Connolly for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2058. [03-2057, 03-2058] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/22/03

Appearance form filed by Paul Alexander Mallos for Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, Paul Alexander Mallos for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2058. [03-2057,

2 of 7

5/31/2007 10:11 AM

USCA4 Docket Sheet for 03-2058

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=03-2058&p...

03-2058] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/22/03

Positive disclosure statement filed by Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2058. . [03-2057, 03-2058] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/22/03

Appearance form filed by Paul D. Ramshaw for Appellee EEOC in 03-2057, Paul D. Ramshaw for Appellee EEOC in 03-2058. [03-2057, 03-2058] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/22/03

Docketing statement filed by Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057 [3857576-1] T/S needed [Y/N]: n T/S already on file?: n/a. [03-2057] ~ [3857576] (jsj) [03-2057]

9/22/03

Appearance form filed by Anthony Walter Kraus for Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058. [03-2057, 03-2058] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/22/03

Appearance form filed by Kathleen Pontone for Paul Hall Center in 03-2057, Kathleen Pontone for Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058. [03-2057, 03-2058] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/22/03

Positive disclosure statement filed by Paul Hall Center in 03-2057, Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058. . [03-2057, 03-2058] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/22/03

Docketing statement filed by Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 [3857605-1] T/S needed [Y/N]: n T/S already on file?: n. [03-2058] ~ [3857605] (jsj) [03-2058]

9/23/03

Briefing order filed. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3857614] Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix due 11/3/03 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 . (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

9/24/03

Appearance form filed by Christian L. Simpson for Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058. [03-2057, 03-2058] (pks)

Docket as of September 7, 2006 0:06 am

Page 4

03-2058 EEOC, et al v. Paul Hall Center, et al

[03-2057 03-2058]

10/1/03

ORDER FILED [3863008] to extend time to file appellant(s) brief until 11/18/03 [3863008-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 11/18/03 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3863008] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

10/9/03

Certification of ROA complete and retained in the District Court. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3868053] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

10/29/03

ORDER FILED [3878497] to extend time to file appellant(s) brief/appendix until 12/3/03 [3878497-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 12/3/03 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 . [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3878497] (dsd) [03-2057 03-2058]

11/19/03

ORDER FILED [3889580] to extend time to file appellant(s) brief until 1/21/04 [3889580-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 1/26/04 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3889580] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

12/15/03

ORDER FILED [3902424] to extend time to file appellant(s)

3 of 7

5/31/2007 10:11 AM

USCA4 Docket Sheet for 03-2058

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=03-2058&p...

brief until 3/1/04 [3902424-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 3/1/04 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3902424] (jsj) [03-2058]

12/15/03

ORDER FILED [3902431] to extend time to file appellant(s) brief until 3/1/04 [3902431-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 3/1/04 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3902431] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

1/21/04

ORDER FILED [3919996] to extend time to file appellant(s) brief until 3/22/04 [3919996-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 3/22/04 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3919996] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

2/11/04

ORDER FILED [3931837] to extend time to file appellant(s) brief until 4/5/04 [3931837-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 4/5/04 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 Copies to all parties. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3931837] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

3/4/04

ORDER FILED [3944311] to extend time to file appellant(s) brief until 4/12/04 [3944311-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 4/12/04 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 Copies to all parties. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3944311] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

Docket as of September 7, 2006 0:06 am

Page 5

03-2058 EEOC, et al v. Paul Hall Center, et al

3/11/04

ORDER FILED [3947923] to extend time to file appellant(s) brief until 4/26/04 [3947923-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 4/26/04 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 Copies to all parties. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3947923] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

3/15/04

Fee notice issued to Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057. [03-2057] ~ [3950277] IFP application/fee due on 3/30/04 for Seafarers Intl Union. (jsj) [03-2057]

3/15/04

Fee notice issued to Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058. [03-2058] ~ [3950282] IFP application/fee due on 3/30/04 for Paul Hall Center. (jsj) [03-2058]

3/18/04

ORDER FILED [3952080] to extend time to file appellant(s) brief until 5/10/04 [3952080-1]. Appellant(s) brief/joint appendix now due 5/10/04 for Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, for Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 Copies to all parties. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3952080] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

3/23/04

Fee paid. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3955005] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

5/10/04

Brief and joint appendix filed by Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058. Copies of brf: 8 Sealed portion?[Y/N]: n # Brf pages: 73 # Apx Copies(include vol #'s): 6 # Apx pages: 241 2-sided copying?[Y/N]: y Sufficient?[Y/N]: y Method of filing w/ court: cd Date of Service on parties: 5/7/04 Type of

4 of 7

5/31/2007 10:11 AM

USCA4 Docket Sheet for 03-2058

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=03-2058&p...

service on parties: pm [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3981696] Appellee brief due 6/9/04 for EEOC in 03-2057, for EEOC in 03-2058 . (dsd) [03-2057 03-2058]

5/10/04

Addendum to brief filed by Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058. Copies of adndm: 8 # adndm pages: 118 . n. [03-2057, 03-2058] (dsd) [03-2057 03-2058]

5/10/04

Motion filed by Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058 to file addendum to brief. Addendum tendered? (Y/N): y [3981709-1]. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3981709] (dsd) [03-2057 03-2058]

5/11/04

Response/answer requested to motion to file addendum to brief [3981709-1] Response/answer due 5/24/04 for EEOC in 03-2057, for EEOC in 03-2058 . in 03-2057, motion to file addendum to brief [3981709-1] in 03-2058 [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3982073] (dsd) [03-2057 03-2058]

Docket as of September 7, 2006 0:06 am

Page 6

03-2058 EEOC, et al v. Paul Hall Center, et al

5/21/04

Response/answer filed [3987829-1] by Appellee EEOC in 03-2057, Appellee EEOC in 03-2058 to motion to file addendum to brief [3981709-1] in 03-2058, 03-2058 [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3987829] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

5/21/04

ORDER FILED [3987934] granting motion to file addendum to brief [3981709-1] in 03-2057, 03-2058 Copies to all parties. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [3987934] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

5/21/04

Addendum to brief filed by Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058. Copies of adndm: 8 # adndm pages: 31 . n. [03-2057, 03-2058] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

6/10/04

Brief filed by Appellee EEOC in 03-2057, Appellee EEOC in 03-2058. Copies of brief: 8 # brf pages: 65. Sufficient[Y/N]?: y. SEALED?[Y/N]: n. Method of filing w/ court: pm Date of Service on parties: 6/10/04 Type of service on parties: pm [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [4003568] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

6/18/04

Motion filed by Appellee EEOC in 03-2057, Appellee EEOC in 03-2058 for leave to file brief out of time as of 6/10/04 [4003546-1]. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [4003546] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

6/21/04

ORDER FILED [4003547] granting motion to file brief out of time [4003546-1] as of 6/10/04 . in 03-2057, 03-2058 Copies to all parties. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [4003547] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

6/28/04

Reply brief filed by Appellant Seafarers Intl Union in 03-2057, Appellant Paul Hall Center in 03-2058. Copies of brief: 8 # brf pages: 39. Sufficient[Y/N]?: y. SEALED[Y/N]?: n. Method of filing w/ court: cd Date of Service on parties: 6/28/04 Type of service on parties: pm [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [4008395] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

7/12/04

Appearance form filed by Eric Stefan Dreiband for Appellee EEOC in 03-2057, Eric Stefan Dreiband for Appellee EEOC in 03-2058. [03-2057, 03-2058] (jsj) [03-2057 03-2058]

5 of 7

5/31/2007 10:11 AM

USCA4 Docket Sheet for 03-2058

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=03-2058&p...

8/6/04

Case tentatively calendared for oral argument Term: 10/04 Place: Richmond. NOTIFY OF CONFLICT BY: 8/16/04. [02-2259, 02-2347, 02-4307, 02-4413, 02-4653, 03-14, 03-1208, 03-1259, 03-1821, 04-1255, 03-1882, 03-2057, 03-2058, 03-2100, 03-2103, 03-2148, 03-2166, 03-2223, 03-2227, 03-2252, 04-1240, 03-2254, 03-2269, 03-2282, 03-2388, 03-2420, 03-2522, 03-2448, 03-2471, 03-4083, 03-4172, 03-4177, 03-4183, 03-4379, 03-4422, 03-4591, 03-4592, 03-4593, 03-4602, 03-4804, 03-4596, 03-4677, 03-4849, 03-4839, 03-4847, 03-4867, 03-4896, 03-4907] ~ [4030231] (jle) [03-2058 03-2522 03-4592 03-4593 03-4602 03-4804 03-4849

Docket as of September 7, 2006 0:06 am

Page 7

03-2058 EEOC, et al v. Paul Hall Center, et al

04-1240 04-1255]

8/6/04

Case tentatively calendared for oral argument Term: 10/04 Place: Richmond. NOTIFY OF CONFLICT BY: 8/16/04. [02-2259, 02-2347, 02-4307, 02-4413, 02-4653, 03-14, 03-1208, 03-1259, 03-1821, 04-1255, 03-1882, 03-2057, 03-2058, 03-2100, 03-2103, 03-2148, 03-2166, 03-2223, 03-2227, 03-2252, 04-1240, 03-2254, 03-2269, 03-2282, 03-2388, 03-2420, 03-2522, 03-2448, 03-2471, 03-4083, 03-4172, 03-4177, 03-4183, 03-4379, 03-4422, 03-4591, 03-4592, 03-4593, 03-4602, 03-4804, 03-4596, 03-4677, 03-4849, 03-4839, 03-4847, 03-4867, 03-4896, 03-4907] ~ [4030266] (jle) [02-2259 02-2347 02-4307 02-4413 02-4653 03-1208 03-1259 03-14 03-1821 03-1882 03-2057 03-2058 03-2100 03-2103 03-2148 03-2166 03-2223 03-2227 03-2252 03-2254 03-2269 03-2282 03-2388 03-2420 03-2448 03-2471 03-2522 03-4083 03-4172 03-4177 03-4183 03-4379 03-4422 03-4591 03-4592 03-4593 03-4596 03-4602 03-4677 03-4804 03-4839 03-4847 03-4849 03-4867 03-4896 03-4907 04-1240 04-1255]

8/25/04

Case calendared for oral argument. Case calendared for oral argument on: 10/29/04. [03-2057, 03-2058] ~ [4040485] (jc) [03-2057 03-2058]

10/29/04

Oral argument heard. Panel: Honorable J. H. Wilkinson, Honorable M. B. Michael, Honorable Robert B. King. Courtroom Deputy: Julie Hall. [03-2057, 03-2058] (psc) [03-2057 03-2058]

1/7/05

Published, authored opinion filed. Copies to all parties. [03-2057, 03-2058] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

1/7/05

Judgment order filed. Decision: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. EOD Date: 1/7/05. ~ [4113496] [03-2057, 03-2058] (pks) [03-2057 03-2058]

3/1/05

Mandate issued. ~ [4143204] [03-2057, 03-2058] (sac) [03-2057 03-2058]

Docket as of September 7, 2006 0:06 am

Page 8

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt 05/31/2007 11:12:20

6 of 7

5/31/2007 10:11 AM

USCA4 Docket Sheet for 03-2058

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=03-2058&p...

PACER Login: hs0328

Description:

dkt report

Billable Pages: 8

Client Code:
Case Number:
Cost:

eeoc 03-2058 0.64

7 of 7

5/31/2007 10:11 AM

 
 394 F.3d 197 (2005)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Defendant-Appellant, and Paul Hall Center For Maritime Training And Education, Defendant. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. Paul Hall Center For Maritime Training And Education, Defendant-
Appellant, and Seafarers International Union, Defendant.
Nos. 03-2057, 03-2058.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
January 7, 2005. Argued: October 29, 2004. Decided: January 7, 2005.
198*198 199*199 ARGUED: Anthony Walter Kraus, Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Eric Stefan Dreiband, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Appellate Services, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Kathleen Pontone, Christian Levine Simpson, Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education; Theresa M. Connolly, Piper Rudnick, L.L.P., Reston, Virginia, Paul A. Mallos, Piper Rudnick, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant Seafarers International Union. Carolyn L. Wheeler, Acting Associate General, Vincent J. Blackwood, Assistant General, Paul D. Ramshaw, Attorney, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed and remanded by published opinion. Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Judge Michael and Judge KING joined.
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:

In this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (2000), we have been asked to determine the validity of a 1996 regulation promulgated by appellee, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). This rule extended the strictures of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") to apprenticeship programs. We find that the regulation is a permissible implementation of the EEOC's power under the ADEA. The rule does not contravene the announced intent of Congress and it reasonably reflects the agency's mandate under that statute. We thus affirm the denial of defendants' motions to dismiss and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with our decision.
I.
Appellant Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education ("the center") operates a seafaring apprenticeship program in Maryland. Appellant Seafarers International Union ("the union") represents workers in the maritime industry. At least one officer of the union also sits on a management board of the center. The union refers to the program workers who might benefit from its training. Accepted applicants receive financial support from a labor-management trust that the union maintains with participating shipper-employers. All graduates of the program become eligible for union membership. The union also places many workers who complete the apprenticeship with cooperating shipper-employers.
Several individuals aged 40 or older unsuccessfully applied for admission to the program. They complained to the EEOC that they had been turned away because of their age. After an investigation, the EEOC sued the center and the union in district court. The agency referred to its 1996 regulation extending the age discrimination prohibitions of the ADEA to "[a]ll apprenticeship programs."[1] 200*200 29 C.F.R. § 1625.21 (2004). The EEOC alleged that appellants had violated this regulation. The center had accepted applications only from those aged 17 to 35 and the union had been complicit in this illegal policy. On behalf of the rebuffed applicants, the EEOC sought damages and injunctive relief forbidding the center and the union from maintaining the age restriction in their program.
Appellants disputed the EEOC's claims. They protested that the 1996 agency regulation was an improper interpretation of the ADEA. In addition, the union claimed that, even if the regulation were upheld, its participation in the program was too attenuated to support liability. Appellants moved the district court to dismiss the case on these bases. The lower court denied the motions in an order dated April 30, 2003. It found that dismissing the union as a defendant was inappropriate at such an early stage. See Streeter v. Joint Indus. Bd. of Elec. Indus., 767 F.Supp. 520, 527 (S.D.N.Y.1991). The district court also noted that the validity of the 1996 regulation posed a substantial legal question unresolved by existing law. Since resolution of this question would materially advance the termination of the litigation,

the judge below invited an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (2000). The district court granted certification on August 1, 2003. The judge amended his April 30 order to reflect the certification. We agreed to hear an interlocutory appeal from that order.
II.
A.
When a circuit court certifies an interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b), it assumes jurisdiction of the certified order, not merely the controlling issue of law on which certification was granted. See § 1292(b) (referring to "such order"); see also In re Cinematronics, Inc., 916 F.2d 1444, 1448-49 (9th Cir.1990). In addressing the matters on which the district court ruled in the appealed order, we employ the usual appellate standard governing motions to dismiss. We thus consider questions of law de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant.Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993).
B.
Congress has vested in the EEOC the power to "issue such rules and regulations as it may consider necessary or appropriate for carrying out [the ADEA]." 29 U.S.C. § 628 (2000); see Pub.L. No. 98-532, 98 Stat. 2705 (1984). The agency thus promulgated the 1996 regulation pursuant to explicit congressional delegation.
When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute that it administers, it employs the deferential standard of review articulated in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). See NISH v. Cohen, 247 F.3d 197, 201-02 (4th Cir.2001). Appellants, however, urge us to apply the more probing inquiry of 201*201 Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944), in assessing the EEOC's interpretation of the ADEA. They advance a host of arguments to this end, all of which are unavailing.
First, the center and the union argue that the validity of the 1996 regulation involves only pure questions of statutory construction. These are the peculiar province of courts, they argue, and are excepted from Chevron deference. The Supreme Court has arguably indicated a willingness to entertain arguments of this sort. See, e.g.,INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 446, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). But if there is a narrow exception of the kind appellants seek, courts have limited it to issues that are

quintessentially legal and fail to implicate the agency's expertise in any meaningful manner. See, e.g., Patel v. Ashcroft, 294 F.3d 465, 467 (3d Cir.2002)(according lessened deference for question of whether a crime is an "aggravated felony" for deportation purposes). Whether the ADEA covers apprenticeships is not a question of this sort. Indeed, it involves a multitude of issues that fall squarely within the agency's special competence. See 61 Fed.Reg. 15,374 (Apr. 8, 1996) (discussing the policy justification for the 1996 regulation). For this reason, our application of Chevron remains appropriate. See Cohen, 247 F.3d at 202 n. 2;Virginia v. Browner, 80 F.3d 869, 878 (4th Cir.1996).
Second, appellants suggest that the agency's inconsistent position on the issue of apprenticeships over time undermines the case for deference to its current interpretation. Compare 29 C.F.R. § 1625.13 (1995), with 29 C.F.R. § 1625.21 (2004) (exemption from ADEA for "bona fide" apprenticeships removed by extension of the Act's strictures to all apprenticeships). Of course, the fact that an agency has adopted a certain construction of its organic statute may increase the difficulty of arguing that a varying exposition is also valid. But Chevron itself recognized that congressional delegation to administrative bodies may reflect the need to alter policy in response to changing conditions. See 467 U.S. at 863-64, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Respecting this premise, we see no need to subject a change in regulatory direction to the more probing standards of Skidmore. The Chevron inquiry requires only an organic statute and an agency interpretation to determine whether congressional direction has been respected. Any agency vacillation, though potentially relevant to the outcome of court review, does not require rejection of the Chevron standard. SeeRust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 186-87, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991);Malcomb v. Island Creek Coal Co., 15 F.3d 364, 369 (4th Cir.1994).
Third, appellants claim that the application of the ADEA to apprenticeships is a "fundamental issue" concerning the administrative jurisdiction of the EEOC. Their premise is that Chevron deference should be abandoned when an agency has expansively interpreted a statutory provision defining the bounds of its power. See N. Ill. Steel Supply Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 294 F.3d 844, 847 (7th Cir.2002). But the Supreme Court has never held that Chevron should not apply to interpretations of statutory provisions that delimit agencies' jurisdiction. Indeed, many provisions in administrative statutes define the authority of the administering agency in the manner that the center and the union describe. Yet several decisions have accorded Chevrondeference to agency interpretations of these provisions. See, e.g., Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 844-47, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986) (applying Chevron to the CFTC's extension of its

jurisdiction to common-law counterclaims). We thus see 202*202 no reason to depart from the usual standard of review here.
Congress has delegated administration of the ADEA to the EEOC. See 29 U.S.C. § 628 (2000). Under this authority, the agency promulgated the challenged regulation after public notice and comment. See 60 Fed.Reg. 51,762 (Oct. 3, 1995). For the foregoing reasons we review the EEOC's interpretation of the ADEA under the deferential standard of Chevron. See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001).
III.
A.
We begin by addressing the issue on which the parties sought certification: whether the EEOC exceeded its authority under the ADEA in promulgating its 1996 regulation. The familiar first step of Chevron requires us to apply the "traditional tools of statutory construction" to determine if Congress has prohibited the agency's interpretation. 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. The foremost of these tools is always the plain text of the statute. See MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218, 224-25, 114 S.Ct. 2223, 129 L.Ed.2d 182 (1994); Allen v. United States, 173 F.3d 533, 536 (4th Cir.1999).
The ADEA makes it "unlawful for an employer" to refuse to hire any individual "because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) (2000). In addition to "employer[s]," the statute also explicitly applies to "employment agenc[ies]" and "labor organization[s]." § 623(b)-(c). Appellants argue that the specification of these three categories implies the preclusion of apprenticeship programs from coverage.
It is true that Congress need not list exhaustively all entities that it intends to exempt from legislation. Rather, in coverage provisions of administrative statutes, it is often the case that "expressio unius est exclusio alterius." See Mich. Citizens for an Indep. Press v. Thornburgh, 868 F.2d 1285, 1292-93 (D.C.Cir.1989) (endorsing the application of this maxim in reviewing agency interpretations), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 493 U.S. 38, 110 S.Ct. 398, 107 L.Ed.2d 277 (1989). But it is equally true that Congress can employ general terms in defining the reaches of its laws. And these definitional provisions often support a continuum of permissible administrative constructions. See INS v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 4 F.3d 268, 272 (4th Cir.1993). Indeed, for this reason, "inferences from congressional silence," in the context of administrative law, are often "treacherous." Castro

v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 360 F.3d 721, 729 (7th Cir.2004) (quoting Alto Dairy v. Veneman, 336 F.3d 560, 566 (7th Cir.2003)).
Such is the case with the coverage sections of the ADEA. The statutory reference to "employer[s]" who refuse to hire an individual "because of such individual's age" supports a flexible application of the ADEA's strictures, sufficient to cover a variety of workplace relationships. § 623(a)(1); see also § 630(b) (providing ADEA's broad definition of "employer" as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce"). The most common of these may, as appellants intimate, involve salaried or wage-earning workers subject to the managerial direction of a supervisor. But we have already indicated that the commercial relationships subsumed by the language of § 623(a)(1) may extend beyond this typicality. See Mangram v. Gen. Motors Corp.,108 F.3d 61, 62-63 (4th Cir.1997). Our construction of this provision focuses on the control that the hiring party exercises over the hired individual. Id. (citing Garrett v. Phillips Mills, Inc., 721 203*203 F.2d 979, 982 (4th Cir.1983)). A similar test for employment under § 623(a)(1) has been adopted by our sister circuits. See Barnhart v. New York Life Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 1310, 1312-13 (9th Cir.1998); Speen v. Crown Clothing Corp., 102 F.3d 625, 631 (1st Cir.1996); Deal v. State Farm County Mut. Ins. Co., 5 F.3d 117, 118-19 (5th Cir.1993); Daughtrey v. Honeywell, Inc., 3 F.3d 1488, 1495-96 (11th Cir.1993); Frankel v. Bally, Inc., 987 F.2d 86, 89-90 (2d Cir.1993).
While the particular application of such tests in the peculiar factual context of these cases sometimes supports a finding of an employment relationship, see Daughtrey,3 F.3d at 1496, and sometimes does not, see Mangram, 108 F.3d at 63-64; Deal, 5 F.3d at 119, all the formulations of these tests emphasize that they are heavily fact-dependent. And the question before us here is only whether Congress intended to place apprenticeships generally beyond the reach of the statutory provision that these tests apply, § 623(a)(1). We do not think that it did. Indeed, a broad exemption of apprenticeships from the employment relationship as defined by § 623(a)(1) would be inconsistent with the narrow inquiry into the particulars of each case that our circuit and others have consistently pursued. Formation of an apprenticeship program can create commercial ties between the hirer and the trainee that fall within the employment relationships as construed by this precedent. In fact, such ties may be the reason for the formation of the apprenticeship relationship in the first place. At the least, an examination of the ADEA's coverage provisions in light of existing expositions by federal courts reveals no congressional intention to create a flat exemption for apprenticeships from the statute's provisions. The text of the ADEA thus does not foreclose the EEOC's 1996 regulation.

We also think it significant that the safe harbor provisions of the statute, which exempt from regulation various categories of commercial activity, contain no mention of apprenticeships nor any indication that Congress meant to preserve age discrimination therein. See § 623(f); see also Int'l Union, United Auto. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 201, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991). For example, the safe harbor provisions permit an otherwise prohibited action whenever "age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business." § 623(f)(1). These provisions also exempt a "bona fide seniority system that is not intended to evade the purposes of [the ADEA]." § 623(f)(2). The absence of apprenticeships from this part of the statute only reinforces our conclusion that the text of the ADEA evinces no prohibition of the 1996 rule at issue.
Courts also apply canons of statutory construction at step one of the Chevroninquiry. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191 F.3d 1159, 1165 (9th Cir.1999). One of these canons recognizes that Congress sometimes chooses to model legislation on its own previous enactments. When this occurs, the rule of in pari materia construction counsels examination of the congressional intent expressed in a progenitor statute to clarify the meaning of any derivative sections in later legislation. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985). Invoking this canon, and emphasizing that the Court has already recognized that the coverage provisions of the ADEA were modeled closely on those of Title VII, see Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 584, 98 S.Ct. 866, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978), appellants draw our attention to the latter statute. The center and the union maintain that, even if the four corners of the ADEA provide them no 204*204support, an examination of the ADEA in light of Title VII reveals a congressional intent to preclude the EEOC's 1996 regulation. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)-(d) (2000).
The center and the union note, for instance, that both Title VII and the ADEA proscribe discrimination by "employer [s]," "employment agenc[ies]," and "labor organization [s]." Compare § 2000e-2 (a)-(c), with § 623(a)-(c). In a contiguous section, Title VII, although not the ADEA, also explicitly prohibits discrimination in admission or employment by "any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship...." § 2000e-2(d). Relying on the rule that a statute should not be interpreted to render any of its terms redundant, seeMass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 142, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985), the center and the union claim that Title VII's explicit reference to apprenticeships in § 2000e-2(d) implies that the remaining coverage provisions do not independently reach that business practice. To conclude otherwise, they assert, would reduce Title VII's explicit mention of apprenticeships to surplusage, only echoing a meaning already subsumed by the preceding terms. Thus the reference to

"employer[s]" who "fail ... to hire any individual," in § 2000e-2(a) of Title VII, does not cover apprenticeship programs. It would follow, the center and the union argue, that § 623(a) of the ADEA, like its template from Title VII, cannot extend to apprenticeships. Appellants submit that the EEOC's 1996 rule, expressing the opposite conclusion, is invalid.
Contrary to the center and the union's assertion, however, a close examination of Title VII does not imperil the EEOC's regulation. Indeed, appellants' argument contains an erroneous premise that undermines their conclusion to this end. Their premise is that a capacious interpretation of § 2000e-2(a) of Title VII as encompassing apprenticeships would render the explicit inclusion of that employment practice in section § 2000e-2(d) redundant. But there is a simple reconciliation of the two provisions that affords the former the appropriate breadthand avoids rendering the latter superfluous. Under this construction, the language of § 2000e-2(a) requires the application of the Act to a class of typical economic relationships subsumed by the common understanding of employment as between a company and a salaried or wage-earning worker. But § 2000e-2(a) also permits, without requiring, extension of the statute's discrimination prohibitions to an additional set of less customary workplace associations. Such a broad delegation to an administering agency, requiring some interpretations and permitting others, would hardly represent a novel course of legislative action. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 474, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001). Indeed, it is implicit in the very model of agency administration underlying Chevron.
This understanding of Title VII's reach, far from disturbing our conclusion that the 1996 regulation at issue validly construed the ADEA, actually reinforces it. For if § 2000e-2(a) of Title VII is broad enough to permit, but not require, application of that Act's strictures to apprenticeships, then omission of an analogue to § 2000e-2(d) in the ADEA, contrary to appellants' suggestion, does nothing to foreclose just such an extension of that statute's prohibitions. It only restores to regulatory discretion the full range of permissible meanings subsumed by the terms "employer" and "individual" in § 2000e-2(a). And this range, we have shown, supports the 1996 rule that the center and the union have challenged here.
205*205 Moreover, we believe that our reconciliation of the ADEA with its Title VII model best reflects an important axiom of Chevron review — that agencies should remain free to administer their organic statutes to meet the regulatory needs of changing conditions. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 863-64, 104 S.Ct. 2778; Yanez-Popp v. INS,998 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir.1993). The EEOC invoked this basis for deference when it found that "dislocations in the American economy" have recently made age discrimination in apprenticeships a more significant obstacle to employment for older workers than it had been before. 61 Fed.Reg. at 15,376. Appellants' proffered construction of Title VII, with its

limiting consequences for the ADEA, would bind the EEOC to a much narrower mandate and frustrate realization of this ground forChevron deference here.
A comparison of the text and structure of the two statutes reveals no congressional intention to sanction age discrimination in apprenticeships under the ADEA. Applying the preliminary analysis that Chevron requires, we find no reason to disturb the EEOC's 1996 regulation at step one of our review.
B.
We therefore progress to step two of the Chevron inquiry and ask whether the agency's rule is a permissible interpretation of its organic statute. 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778; NISH v. Cohen, 247 F.3d 197, 202 (4th Cir.2001); Virginia v. Browner, 80 F.3d 869, 878 (4th Cir.1996). A reasonable construction at this step is one that "harmonizes with the plain language of the statute, its origin, and its purpose." Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. United States, 142 F.3d 973, 981 (7th Cir.1998)(quoting Bell Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Comm'r, 40 F.3d 224, 227 (7th Cir.1994)). The 1996 regulation satisfies this standard.
We begin with the statute's language. The ADEA is replete with references to different kinds of entities engaged in business in the commercial sphere. And the statutory proscriptions for these actors' behavior with respect to age are wide-ranging. For instance, the Act regulates employers and unions not merely in their decisions to hire and fire and bestow membership respectively, but also from "limit[ing], segregat[ing], or classify[ing]" their employees and members in an age-discriminatory manner. See § 623(a)(1), (c). Such broad prohibitions evince an attempt on the part of Congress to ensure seamless continuity of coverage under the ADEA for economic entities in the labor market. Viewed in light of this aim, the EEOC's extension of the Act's strictures to apprenticeships — one of the few spheres of commerce which it has heretofore left largely undisturbed — is sensible.
The ADEA grew out of the concern, expressed by the Secretary of Labor in a report that Congress directed him to prepare, that "the disadvantaged position of older workers in our society" was causing "individual and social losses readily apparent in unemployment, inadequate incomes, and isolation of older persons from the mainstream of activity...." See Report of the Secretary of Labor, The Older American Worker: Age Discrimination in Employment 97 (1965). The statute thus evinces a concern with age discrimination in the sphere of employment generally. Apprenticeships are the entry point to the workforce for a significant number of our citizens. See generally The National Registered Apprenticeship System: Programs and Apprentices, Fiscal Year 2003, Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services (OATELS), Department of Labor (2004), available

athttp://www.doleta.gov/ 206*206 atels_bat/pdf/ statsheet03.pdf. The EEOC could permissibly conclude that Congress, in an attempt to combat age discrimination in the workplace, did not intend to broadly sanction such discrimination at the doorstep.
It thus did not run against the statutory grain for the EEOC to determine that rapid changes in the American economy and global markets made age restrictions in training programs a greater burden on older workers than they had borne heretofore. Congress declared in the ADEA that its aim is "to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age...." § 621(b). The belief that age and aptitude are not correlated, which underlies this proclamation, pervades the entire statute. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized as much. W. Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400, 422, 105 S.Ct. 2743, 86 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985) (acknowledging the ADEA command that "employers are to evaluate employees ... on their merits and not their age"). The stereotype underlying age restrictions in apprenticeships, meanwhile, is that older people are unable to learn the skills of a trade as efficiently as their younger counterparts. Such barriers to entry may also demean the contributions to the human capital of younger workers that their more mature peers can impart. On both accounts, the kind of age discrimination that is alleged here contravenes the reason the statute was enacted. By respecting this purpose, while not contravening clear statutory language, the 1996 regulation represents a permissible interpretation of the Act.[2]
IV.
Throughout this appeal, and in the proceedings before the district court, the center and the union repeatedly assailed the wisdom of the EEOC's position. They maintained that agebarriers to entry are a hallmark of apprenticeships and complained that the EEOC's regulation effectively guts that employment practice by erasing its defining characteristic. They objected to the decrease in job opportunities for the young that the 1996 rule may cause and protested that "[i]nitial occupational training ... involves substantial costs, yielding a greater return in the long run from candidates with longer anticipated working lives." They alleged that the agency failed to adequately consider these ill consequences.
Appellants' arguments may have force. To vindicate them, however, would involve a judicial foray into policies far removed from our mandate under law. In the final analysis, their treatment is for the legislative and executive branches and beyond 207*207the province of this court. Congress has already entrusted enforcement of this statute to the EEOC. See 29 U.S.C. § 628 (2000); Pub.L. No. 98-532, 98 Stat. 2705 (1984). Pursuant to this delegation, the agency promulgated a rule, after public comment, that brought age discrimination in apprenticeships within the purview of the Act. We are not authorized to judge the wisdom of

this step. We are empowered only to ensure that the agency did not contravene the
expressed intent of Congress, nor unreasonably apply its mandate, in reaching the
interpretation that this rule reflects. We find that it did neither. We therefore affirm the district
court's denial of defendants' motions to dismiss and remand the case for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
[1] In its entirety, the regulation provides that "[a]ll apprenticeship programs, including those apprenticeship programs created or maintained by joint labor-management organizations, are subject to the prohibitions of sec. 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 623. Age limitations in apprenticeship programs are valid only if excepted under sec. 4(f)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 623(f)(1), or exempted by the Commission under sec. 9 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 628, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR 1627.15." The prohibitions of 29 U.S.C. § 623 (2000) include, inter alia, the requirement that the regulated entity be an employer and engaged in an employment relationship. See id. § 623(a)(1).
[2] The parties have argued to us numerous grounds for liability, and defenses thereto, that do not depend on the validity of the challenged regulation, yet whose resolution here may be altered by our validation of that rule. For instance, the EEOC alleges that the union violates the ADEA by conditioning its membership on completion of the apprenticeship program. See § 623(c)(1)-(2). The agency also asserts that the center violates the ADEA when, in its capacity as employer under § 623(a), it interferes with the access of older persons to employment with other employers. Appellants resist these claims generally, and the union, for its part, argues that the relationship it maintains with the program is too attenuated to support liability under any legal theory. We decline to further address such matters. We are wary of overreaching on interlocutory proceedings, see Rowland v. Perry, 41 F.3d 167, 175 (4th Cir.1994), and believe that the district court, applying our opinion, the Act, and other relevant federal law, is the best forum for continued exposition of these claims if the parties see fit to preserve them on remand. See generally Herman v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 60 F.3d 1375 (9th Cir.1995).