0~ DEC 2 ? PM 3:30

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:04CV845
COMPLAINT
~. DLOI]~ ~
J. HOGAi~

and

UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 863,

and

THE NATIONAL FORD-UAW JOINT APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

and

THE LOCAL FORDoUAW JOINT

)

APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to correct unlawful

employment practices on the basis of race, and to provide appropriate relief to James

Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris,

Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks,

Gordon B. Rinfro, Eric Barbee, Darnay Cheeks and the class of similarly-situated African-

American apprenticeship test takers who were adversely affected by such practices. The

Commission alleges that Defendants’ apprenticeship test has a disparate impact on

African-American apprentice applicants and consequently denies them eligibility and

admission to the apprenticeship program at least since January 1, 1997.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1)

and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)

and (3 ("Title VII").

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District

of Ohio, Western Division.

2

PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 41 At all relevant times, Defendant Ford Motor Company (the "Employer"), has continuously been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Sharonville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (the "UAW"), has continuously .been an association of participating employees which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, and has continuously had at least 15 members. At all relevant times, the National UAW has been the recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of the Defendant Employer. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant UAW has continuously been a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(d) and (e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(d) and (e).
3

8. At all relevant times, Defendant United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 863 ("UAW Local 863"), has continuously been a local association of participating employees which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, and has continuously had at least 15 members. At all relevant times, the Local UAW has been chartered by the UAW as a local or subordinate body through which the recognized collective bargaining representative for local employees of the Defendant Employer may enjoy membership or become affiliated.
9. At all relevant times,Defendant UAW Local 863 has continuously been a labor organization engaged in anindustry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(d) and (e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(d) and (e).
10. At all relevant times, Defendant Ford & UAW National Joint Apprenticeship Committee (the "National Joint Apprenticeship Committee" or "NJAC"), has continuously been a joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training for Defendant Employer.
11. At all relevant times, Defendant Local Ford & UAW Joint Apprenticeship Committee (the "Local Joint Apprenticeship Committee" or"LJAC"), hascontinuously been a joint labor-management committee controlling local apprenticeship or other local training for Defendant Employer.
4

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 12. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks, Gordon B. Rinfro, Eric Barbee and Darnay Cheeks filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 13. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks and Gordon B. Rinfro filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant UAW. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 14. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks and Gordon B. Rinfro filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant UAW Local 863. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 15. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks and
5

Gordon B. Rinfro filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant NJAC. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
16. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert $. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks and Gordon B. Rinfro filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant LJAC. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
17. Since at least January 1,1997, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Sharonville and former Batavia, Ohio facilities, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The Commission alleges that Defendant Employer’s apprenticeship test has a disparate impact on African-American apprentice applicants and consequently denies them eligibility and admission to the apprenticeship program.
1.8. Since at least January 1, 1997, Defendant UAW has engaged in unlawful employment practices at Defendant Employer’s Sharonville and former Batavia, Ohio facilities, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The Commission alleges that Defendant UAW’s apprenticeship test has a disparate impact on African-American apprentice applicants and consequently denies them eligibility and admission to the apprenticeship program.

19. Since at least January 1, 1997, Defendant UAW Local 863 has engaged in unlawful employment practices at Defendant Employer’s Sharonville and former Batavia, Ohio facilities, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The Commission alleges that Defendant UAW Local 863’s apprenticeship test has a disparate impact on African-American apprentice applicants and consequently denies them eligibility and admission to the apprenticeship program.
20. Since at least January 1, 1997, Defendant UAW NJAC has engaged in unlawful employment practices at Defendant Employer’s Sharonville and former Batavia, Ohio facilities, in violation of Section 703(a) of Tit~e VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The Commission alleges that Defendant NJAC’s apprenticeship test has a disparate impact on African-American apprentice applicants and consequently denies them eligibility and admission to the apprenticeship program.
21. Since at least January 1, 1997, Defendant LJAC has engaged in unlawful employment practices at Defendant Employer’s Sharonville and former Batavia, Ohio facilities, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The Commission alleges that Defendant LJAC’s apprenticeship test has a disparate impact on African-American apprentice applicants and consequently denies them eligibility and admission to the apprenticeship program.
22. The effect of the practice(s) complained of in paragraph(s) 17-21 above has been to deprive James Robinson, St., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks, Gordon B. Rinfro, Eric Barbee, Darnay Cheeks and the class of
7

similarly situated African-American apprenticeship test takers of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees and apprentice applicants, because of their race.
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 disparate impact regarding selection for apprenticeship and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities forAfrican-Americans, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett,Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks, Gordon B. Rinfro, Eric Barbee, Darnay Cheeks and other similarly situated African-American individuals by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including rightful-place instatement and front pay. D. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant UAW, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging
8

in disparate impact regarding selection for apprenticeship and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race.
E. Order Defendant UAW to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities forAfdcan-Americans, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
F. Order Defendant UAW to make whole James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks, Gordon B. Rinfro and other similarly situated African-American individuals by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including rightfulplace instatement and front pay.
G. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant UAW Local 863, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in disparate impact regarding selection for apprenticeship and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race.
H. Order Defendant UAW Local 863 to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African-Americans, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
I. Order Defendant UAW Local 863 to make whole James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks, Gordon B. Rinfro
9

and other similarly situated African-American individuals by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including rightfulplace instatement and front pay.
J. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant UAW Local 863, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in disparate impact regarding selection for apprenticeship and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race.
K. Order Defendant UAW Local 863 to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African-Americans, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
L. Order Defendant NJAC make whole James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks, Gordon B. Rinfro and other similarly situated African-American individuals by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects ofits unlawful employment practices, including rightful-place instatement and front pay.
M. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant NJAC, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in disparate impact regarding selection for apprenticeship and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race.
10

N. Order Defendant NJAC to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African-Americans, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
O. Order Defendant LJAC make whole James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan GIover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks, Gordon B. Rinfro and other similarly situated African-American individuals by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including rightful-place instatement and front pay.
P. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant LJAC, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in disparate impact regarding selection for apprenticeship and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race.
Q. Order Defendant LJAC to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities forAfdcan-Americans, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
R. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
11

Award the Commission its costs of this action.
Respectfully submitted,
ERIC S. DREIBAND GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, D.C.
JAMES L. LEE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, D.C.
GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, D.C.
REGIONAL ATTORNEY
LAWRENCE MAYS (003E~288)
SUPER~:SO~ T~RNEY
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Cleveland District Office Tower City - Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street, Suite 850 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-I412 Larry.Watson@eeoc.gov Lawrence.Mays@eeoc.gov Jeffrey.Stern@eeoc.gov (216) 522-7455 (Watson) (216) 522-4796 (Mays) (216) 522-7458 (Stern) (216) 522-7430 telefax
12

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

JAMES ROBINSON, et al.

:

:

Plaintiff(s)

:

: Case Number: 1:04-cv-00844

vs.

:

: Senior District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al.

:

:

Defendant(s)

:

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

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT :

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

:

:

Plaintiff(s)

:

: Case Number: 1:04-cv-00845

vs.

:

: Senior District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al.

:

:

Defendant(s)

:

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Decision by Court: This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

. . . The Court has carefully reviewed all aspects of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, as well as any Objections. Viewing the Proposed Settlement Agreement in its entirety, the Court finds that the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion to Approve the Class Action Settlement (doc. 21). Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (doc. 23) hereby granted. The Court AWARDS $1.1 million to Class Counsel to cover fees and expenses incurred thus far and an additional $567,000.00 to cover those fees and expenses associated with the implementation and monitoring of the settlement over a three to five year period. This award of fees and expenses shall be distributed in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

6/17/05

James Bonini, Clerk
s/Kevin Moser Kevin Moser Deputy Clerk

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES ROBINSON, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

vs.

:

Case No. 1:04-cv-00844
Senior Judge S. Arthur Spiegel

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. : Defendants, :
_________________________________________________________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

Plaintiff :

:

vs.

:

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., : Defendants :

Case No. 1:04-cv-00845 Judge Susan J. Dlott
ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the civil action EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 1:04-cv-00845, is TRANSFERRED from the docket of The Honorable Susan J. Dlott to the docket of The Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel. It is further ORDERED that the aforementioned civil action is hereby CONSOLIDATED with related action James Robinson, et al. v.

Ford Motor Company, et al., 1:04-cv-00844 for all further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 6, 2005

s/S. Arthur Spiegel S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge

Date: January 6, 2005

s/Susan J. Dlott Susan J. Dlott United States District Judge

2

 
 Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES ROBINSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 1:04-cv-00844 Senior Judge S. Arthur Spiegel

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. Defendants

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

Plaintiffs, vs.

Case No. 1:04-cv-00845 Senior Judge S. Arthur Spiegel

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. Defendants

FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S MEMORANDUM FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 STATUS CONFERENCE

Ford Motor Company, Inc. (“Ford”) submits this memorandum to provide factual background relevant to the status conference that the Court has scheduled on September 11, 2007 to discuss the correspondence of Mr. Kevin Marshall. I. The Settlement And Mr. Kevin Marshall
Mr. Marshall is a class member from the Chicago Assembly Plant under the settlement of the above-captioned case approved by the Court on June 15, 2005.

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 2 of 12
Mr. Marshall’s letter concerns the settlement agreement provision requiring Ford to place class members and class representatives onto the Company’s apprenticeship eligibility lists at its plants.
The specific requirements of the relevant settlement agreement provision are: • Ford will select 279 class members and charging parties and offer them placement on the apprenticeship eligibility lists on or before August 7, 2007. Settlement Agreement §§VI.A.1&3, VI.B.1.1 • Once placed on the apprenticeship eligibility lists, the class members and charging parties are “subject to the same rules as all others on the list, including but not limited to (a) the same number and scope of apprenticeship choices; (b) the same priority placement rights with respect to individuals placed on the list after the Settlement Class members; (c) the same rights to remain on the list until placed; and (d) the collective bargaining agreement and Department of Labor Apprenticeship Standards.” Settlement Agreement §VI.A.4.
It is important to note at the outset that the settlement agreement addresses placement of apprentices, not journeypersons. Nor does the settlement agreement immunize class members from the adverse effects of the Company’s current economic predicament on all employees, or supersede the UAW collective bargaining agreement. II. Placement Of Settlement Class Members And Charging Parties On The Lists
Ford Motor Company met and exceeded the Settlement Agreement requirements by (a) offering placements to 280 class members and charging parties, one more than the
1 A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit A.
- 2 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 3 of 12
number required; and (b) completing these offers by February 24, 2006, eighteen months before the deadline. Of those 280 class members and charging parties, 279 accepted the offers; each was placed on the apprenticeship eligibility list at his or her plant.
The 279 class members and charging parties joined 797 non-class member employees who were already on the apprenticeship eligibility lists at various Ford plants.
Since that time, all of the employees on the eligibility lists have been treated in the same way, subject to the same rules and with the same rights under the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement, consistent with the Settlement Agreement. However, like all other Ford employees, their opportunities have been affected by the Company’s current economic difficulties.
As explained in more detail below, Ford’s economic predicament has resulted in the closure of multiple plants, and on excess of employees, including journeypersons. Mr. Marshall complains about the transfer of underutilized journeypersons to locations where there is work for them to do, including Chicago. These transfers are based on the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement, and therefore are consistent with the Settlement Agreement term expressly providing that the rights of class members on the eligibility lists are subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Settlement Agreement §§VI.A.4. There is no basis to Mr. Marshall’s claim that transfer of journeypersons violates the Settlement Agreement. III. Ford’s Economic Predicament Has Affected Its Ability To Place Eligibility
List Employees (Including Class Members and Non-Class Members) In the Apprenticeship Program in 2006 and 2007 Due to significant external factors impacting the domestic automotive industry, Ford has experienced a severe decline in its business since the signing of the Settlement Agreement in November 2004.
- 3 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 4 of 12
A. Business Conditions Overview Ford’s market share and profits have declined significantly. This has directly affected Ford’s employment numbers and manufacturing facilities. In early 2006, Ford announced a plan to return to profitability called “The Way Forward.” This plan includes reducing operating costs by approximately $5 billion, including among other things: • Closure of eleven Ford manufacturing facilities by 2008 • Significant reductions in the workforce:
• Salaried work force reduced by a third, the equivalent of about 14,000 positions
• Hourly employment numbers decreased from 87,200 in 2004 to approximately 59,000 today with additional hourly attrition occurring in the future
• Additional reductions in the hourly workforce - Ford and UAW leadership agreed on buyout offers for all U.S. Ford and ACH hourly employees, which are currently in progress
B. Effect Of The Reductions On Journeypersons Ford’s journeypersons are Ford employees who are fully qualified to work in skilled trades such as electrician, plumber, tool-and-die maker and others. With the closure of so many plants, Ford found itself with many excess employees in all categories, including journeypersons. This resulted not only in reduction of salaried employees and a voluntary buyout plan for hourly employees, as described above, but also in a large increase in the number of hourly employees, including journeypersons, who were displaced into a program called GEN Protected Status (also known as the “Job
- 4 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 5 of 12
Bank”) under the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement.2 The GEN program has existed for decades.
GEN Protected Status is required under the job-security provisions of the UAWFord collective bargaining agreement. (See Exhibit B (excerpts from collectively bargained letter agreements and appendices)). Under the GEN program, hourly employees, including journeypersons, who are not needed in operations, for reasons including plant closings, are placed in the Job Bank at full pay but without work to do until they are placed in an open position. Employees in GEN Protected Status have priority status for placement in open positions. When a vacant position exists in the same geographic “zone” (within 50 miles of a plant) as a GEN Protected employee’s location, then the collective bargaining agreement provides that the GEN Protected employee “shall be given preference for placement on available work, or if none is available, the opportunity to displace probationary employees.” (Exhibit B, Appendix N ¶ 1; see also Exhibit B, September 15, 2003 Letter Agreement at 116 (employees in GEN Protected Status are placed in zone “on a mandatory basis”)). When the vacant position is outside of the GEN Protected employee’s zone, then the GEN Protected employee has a preferential right to it, but does not have the right to displace probationary employees. (Id., Appendix N ¶¶ 3-4).
There are currently an excess of 390 journeypersons in GEN Protected Status that are not needed in operations, as a result of plant closings and other reductions. They are paid at 100% of their hourly rates. Employees assigned to GEN either remain in a central
2 “GEN” is an acronym for “Guaranteed Employment Number.” The UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement establishes guaranteed minimum numbers of hourly employees.
- 5 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 6 of 12

location within the facility without performing any work, or may be utilized on non-

traditional assignments until they can be placed where there is work to do. Under the

UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement, Ford places employees in GEN Protected

Status into job openings at other Ford facilities at the earliest available opportunity. As

noted above, placement of employees in GEN Protected Status takes precedence over

other procedures for filling job openings, such as promotions or hiring. (See id.).

Under the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement, Ford moved and

continues to move journeypersons who are sitting in GEN Protected Status to other

facilities that need journeypersons. This is occurring at many facilities across the

country, with a very significant increase in 2006 and 2007 (to date):

Year
2004 2005 2006 YTD 2007

Number of journeypersons in GEN moved to other facilities
39 34 91 126

C. Effect Of Current Economic Conditions On The Apprenticeship Program

Ford’s apprenticeship program has been in existence since 1941. It is a four-year

training program that prepares employees to be journeypersons in skilled trades. Upon

successful completion of the apprenticeship program in four years, apprentices graduate

as journeypersons. Ford is willing to expend the large amounts of resources required to

train employees to be journeypersons to ensure that the Company has a flow of highly

qualified journeypersons sufficient to fill vacant journeyperson positions in the future.

- 6 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 7 of 12

When Ford has excess journeypersons, as it now has, the need to place employees into the apprenticeship program is reduced.3 In those times, as now, Ford does not shut

down the apprenticeship program, but it does temporarily cease placements, or it reduces

the number of placements, of employees into the apprenticeship program until the need

for additional journeypersons arises again, as it inevitably does.

That is what has happened at Ford in 2006-2007, as a result of the closing of

multiple plants. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Ford Motor Company typically added 350-

500 new apprentices per year to the apprenticeship program, and the program had

approximately 1400 - 1700 apprentices on roll. As the impact of Ford’s current

economic downturn has been increasingly felt, the numbers of apprentices have declined.

Year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 YTD 2007

# of Apprentices on Roll
1670 apprentices on roll 1500 apprentices on roll 1400 apprentices on roll 937 apprentices on roll 655 apprentices on roll 377 apprentices on roll

In January 1, 2006 - September 25, 2006, only 32 apprentices were taken from the

apprenticeship eligibility lists and added to the Apprentice Program. No apprentices have

been added to the program since September 25, 2006. Due to excess journeypersons and

adverse business conditions, no apprentices are projected to be added to the program in

2007.

Ford remains committed to its apprenticeship program, as it has been for over 60

years. The program continues unabated with apprentices who entered over the last four

3 For example, in the recession during the early 1980s, Ford also experienced a dramatic reduction in the size of its apprenticeship program. When business conditions improved, Ford again expanded the program.
- 7 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 8 of 12
years. When the excess of journeypersons has been absorbed and Ford again needs to add to the flow of apprentices, Ford will again take employees off of the apprenticeship eligibility lists and add them to the apprenticeship program. Ford currently projects that this will happen at some point in 2008, although that is of course subject to the economic imperatives under which the Company operates.4
D. Effect Of The Economic Conditions On The Apprenticeship Eligibility Lists
As a result of business conditions, Ford has not added any additional employees to its apprenticeship eligibility lists since the placement of the 279 class members and charging parties. Currently, in addition to the 279 class members and charging parties, there are 797 non-class member employees on their respective facilities’ apprenticeship eligibility lists. IV. Placement of GEN Journeypersons At The Chicago Assembly Plant
Journeyperson positions at the Chicago Assembly Plant at which Mr. Marshall works have been addressed in the same way as at other locations, under the terms of the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement. Ford has not hired any journeypersons from outside the Company. In 2005-2007, Ford transferred nine journeypersons from other facilities to the Chicago Assembly Plant under the GEN program in the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement.5 Ford currently projects that it may need one or two additional journeypersons in 2007 at the Chicago Assembly Plant, and that those positions will be filled with transfers under the GEN program.
4 In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company will conduct another in-depth analysis to determine whether apprentices will be added to the Apprenticeship Program in 2008. 5 Of those, 2 were Hispanic and 7 were Caucasian.
- 8 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 9 of 12
There are currently twenty-three employees on the Chicago Assembly Plant apprenticeship eligibility list. All twenty-three are class members, because at the Chicago Assembly Plant, unlike many other plants, the list was empty at the time of the placement of class members. Mr. Marshall is seventeenth (17th) on the list. Per the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement, class members were placed on the list in seniority order, with the last four numbers of their Social Security Number used as a tie breaker. When Ford resumes placement of employees from the apprenticeship eligibility lists into the apprenticeship program, the Chicago Assembly Plant will be treated like all others, and apprentices will be placed from the list in the order provided in the collective bargaining agreement.
Ford’s placement of GEN journeypersons at the Chicago Assembly Plant is fully consistent with the Settlement Agreement. As an initial matter, the Settlement Agreement does not govern or even refer to selection or transfer of journeypersons; it deals only with apprentices. Settlement Agreement §§VI.A.1&3, VI.B.1. Even if individuals were placed in the apprenticeship program from the Chicago Assembly Plant eligibility list, they would not be capable of performing journeyperson jobs until they completed four years of training. Thus, placement of apprentices in the program would not address the question of current needs for journeypersons.
The Settlement Agreement expressly provides that once the class members are placed on the apprenticeship eligibility lists, they are subject to all of the same rules and have exactly the same rights as others on the lists. Here, the class members have been treated in exactly the same way as the 797 non-class members on the apprenticeship eligibility lists. In all cases, the placement of individuals from the eligibility lists depends
- 9 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 10 of 12
on the need for apprentices at the plant. Because of economic conditions and the resulting availability of GEN journeypersons, Ford does not currently need to place any apprentices. That limitation applies equally to class members and non-class members alike. When the need for apprentices returns, then class members and non-class members will be taken off the lists in the manner provided in the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement, consistent with the Settlement Agreement.
Additionally, the transfer of GEN journeypersons is based on the UAW-Ford collective bargaining agreement, and therefore is consistent with the Settlement Agreement term expressly providing that the rights of class members on the eligibility lists are subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Settlement Agreement §§VI.A.4. There is no basis to Mr. Marshall’s claim that placement of GEN journeypersons violates the Settlement Agreement in any way. V. Conclusion
Ford’s difficult business circumstances have had negative effects for everyone at the Company. Thousands have lost their jobs. Numerous plants have closed. The apprenticeship program has been affected too, as the Company is not adding apprentices at this time and does not expect to do so in 2007. The Settlement Agreement gave the class members rights to placement on apprenticeship eligibility lists, and those rights have been fulfilled. The Settlement Agreement expressly placed the class members on the same footing as others on the apprenticeship eligibility lists. It did not make the class members immune from the adverse effects of Ford’s economic downturn that affect them and non-class members alike. Giving preferential treatment to class members as compared to others on the eligibility lists, as Mr. Marshall appears to request, would be directly contrary to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
- 10 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 11 of 12
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kenneth M. Willner____________
Barbara B. Brown Kenneth M. Willner PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-551-1700 Fax: 202-551-1705 kenwillner@paulhastings.com Virginia E. Morrison PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 720-2644 Fax: (858) 847-3644 Counsel for Ford Motor Company
- 11 -

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 6, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all parties registered with the CM/ECF system, and that I have mailed the foregoing document by U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, to the following:

Nathaniel R. Jones Blank Rome, LLP 201 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1700 Cincinnati, OH 45202
Cyrus Mehri Lisa Bornstein Mehri & Skalet, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036
Armand Derfner Derfner, Altman & Wilborn, LLC 116 Church Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 600 Charleston, SC 29402

Rhonda Maxwell The Law Office of Rhonda M. Maxwell 4204 River Laurel Trace Suwanee, GA 30024
Jeffrey A. Stern U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission AJC Federal Building 1240 East 9th Street, Suite 3001 Cleveland, OH 44199
Carlos F. Bermudez Office of the General Counsel International Union, UAW 8000 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, Michigan 48214
Kevin Marshall 617 Clover Lane University Park, IL 60466

/s/ Kenneth M. Willner Kenneth M. Willner Attorney for Defendant Ford Motor Company Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 551-1700 Fax: (202) 551-1705 kenwillner@paulhastings.com

LEGAL_US_E # 76151883.1

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 38
Exhibit A

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 2 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 3 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 4 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 5 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 6 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 7 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 8 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 9 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 10 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 11 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 12 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 13 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 14 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 15 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 16 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 17 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 18 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 19 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 20 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 21 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 22 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 23 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 24 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 25 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 26 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 27 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 28 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 29 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 30 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 31 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 32 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 33 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 34 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 35 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 36 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 37 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-2 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 38 of 38

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 18
Exhibit B

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 2 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 3 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 4 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 5 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 6 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 7 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 8 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 9 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 10 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 11 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 12 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 13 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 14 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 15 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 16 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 17 of 18

Case 1:04-cv-00844-SAS Document 36-3 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 18 of 18

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES ROBINSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

: NO: 1:04-CV-00844 : :
: : OPINION & ORDER : : : : : :

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

THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

: : NO: 1:04-CV-00845 : : : : : : : : : :

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion in Support of Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses (doc. 23) to which Defendants filed no written objections and in open court agreed that Plaintiffs’ requests for fees and expenses is reasonable. The Court just recently addressed the issue of approval of the proposed settlement in an Order of this Court (doc. 28). Plaintiffs’ Counsel seeks attorneys’ fees and

reimbursement for costs and expenses pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (doc. 23). Specifically, Plaintiffs’ counsels seeks fees and reimbursement of expenses totaling combined $1,100,000, as well as $567,000 to cover fees and expenses associated with the implementation and monitoring of the settlement over a three to five year period (Id.). As noted above, and reiterated in Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendants neither oppose the Plaintiffs’ Class Counsels’ entitlement to fees nor contest the reasonableness of the award.
Plaintiffs note that the Sixth Circuit has routinely held that the “primary concern in evaluating a request for attorneys fees ‘is that the fee awarded be reasonable.’” Paschal v. Flagstar Bank, 297 F.3d 431, 434 (6th Cir. 2002). One accepted means of determining the reasonableness of fees is the lodestar method. Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 94 (1989). The United States Supreme Court has stated, in discussing the lodestar method, “[t]he most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); see also Paschal at 434.
However, other factors may exist which warrant the Court to adjust the fee award upward or downward, including the important factor of the “results obtained.” Hensley at 434. The Supreme Court has also noted that superior legal service and
2

exceptional success are factors to suggest an enhancement of a fee award. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 899-901 (1984). In those cases where counsel have had “exceptional success” enhanced fee awards may be warranted. Hensley at 435. In the Fifth Circuit case, Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), the court enunciated twelve factors courts may consider in determining whether to adjust the lodestar amount. Id. at 71719. The Supreme Court has found these factors useful in determining the reasonableness of a fee award. Blanchard at 93. These twelve factors include:
1. The time and labor required; 2. The novelty and difficulty of the questions; 3. The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; 4. The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; 5. The customary fee; 6. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent; 7. Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; 8. The amount involved and the results obtained; 9. The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; 10. The “undesirability” of the case; 11. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and
3

12. Awards in similar cases. Johnson at 717-19, see also Northcross v. Bd. of Educ., 611 F.2d 624, 642-43 (6th Cir. 1979) (evaluating and refining the Johnson factors). Plaintiffs maintain that each of the above listed factors is present in this matter (doc. 23).
As noted above, the Settlement Agreement provides for $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses to compensate Class Counsel for the time and costs involved in prosecuting the claims at issue in the case up to and including the date of final approval. See Settlement Agreement § XI.A. Additionally, the Settlement Agreement provides for a second payment of $567,000 to cover the fees and expenses associated with the implementation and monitoring of the settlement over a three to five year period. See Settlement Agreement § XI.B. Also, as noted above, Defendants do not object to this award nor has any class member objected despite an explanation of the fee provisions in the Notice sent to all class members (doc. 23).
Plaintiffs comment that the total lodestar for Class Counsel at this state of the litigation is approximately $670,565.25 (Id.). Expenses thus far total approximately $37,809,87 (Id.). Plaintiffs note that after subtracting expenses from the $1.1 million figure, the multiplier in this case - 1.58 is reasonable when compared with fee awards previously awarded by this Court (Id.). For example, in Brotherton v. Cleveland, 141 F.
4

Supp. 2d 907 (S.D. Ohio 2001), a 50% upward adjustment equivalent to about 20% of the total amount of the common fund was permitted. Id. In re Fernald Litigation, 1989 WL 267038 (S.D. Ohio, Sep. 29, 1989), 20% of the common fund or an equivalent multiplier of 5 was found reasonable. Id. at *5. Again, in a case before this Court, Basile v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 640 F.Supp 697 (S.D. Ohio 1986), a 2.78 multiplier or 25% of the common fund was determined reasonable. Id. In this case, the common fund exceeds $8 million. Based on the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee amounts to approximately 12% of the award to the class members. This Court has noted, “typically [in class action common fund case awards] the percentages range from 20% - 50%.” In re Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. Securities Litigation, 643 F.Supp 148 (S.D. Ohio 1986).
The Court notes that the qualifications and skill of the attorneys in this case is impressive. Armand Derfner has spent forty years litigating civil rights cases (doc. 23). Cyrus Mehri has achieved quite favorable results in several employment discrimination class action cases (Id.). Furthermore, Nathaniel R. Jones served as a Judge of the Sixth Circuit and prior to his appointment to the federal bench was a civil rights attorney who served as General Counsel for the NAACP (Id.).
Additionally, the Court notes that the results obtained in this matter are far-reaching and notable. The
5

injunctive and declaratory relief provided for in the Settlement Agreement contemplates a new testing instrument to decrease adverse impact in Ford apprenticeship programs nationwide as well as provides a larger make-up of the shortfall than any other case Plaintiff is aware of (doc. 23). Valuable monetary relief has been obtained in addition to this valuable and extensive injunctive relief.
Another factor for the Court to consider is the difficulty and of the case. The issues involved in this case were complex and required exceptional skill. Class Counsel took this case on a contingency basis, involving a risk of attorney time and firm expenses. Plaintiffs contend that this case was one that few attorneys would agree to undertake, particularly on a contingency basis (doc. 23). Plaintiffs contend that had Class Counsel rejected the terms of the Settlement Agreement and proceeded to trial, the Class would likely have received a result no better, while attorneys’ fees would have greatly multiplied (doc. 23).
Lastly, where the request for fees and expenses is not objected to, the decision to adjust a lodestar upward is made somewhat easier. The Settlement Agreement states: “Ford does not oppose Settlement Class Counsel’s entitlement to the fee/cost awards . . ., nor does Ford contest the reasonableness of the awards.” Settlement Agreement § XI.C. Hensley states that ideally, “litigants will settle the amount of a fee.” Hensley at
6

437. As such, the Court gives substantial weight to the Parties’ negotiated fee agreement especially where, as here, the fee is entirely consistent with a reasonable fee award under controlling law and the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ Motion in Support of Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses (doc. 23). The Court AWARDS $1.1 million to Class Counsel to cover fees and expenses incurred thus far and an additional $567,000.00 to cover those fees and expenses associated with the implementation and monitoring of the settlement over a three to five year period. This award of fees and expenses shall be distributed in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2005

s/S. Arthur Spiegel S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge

7

 
 · '"
<,'

--" ..:. .~~.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION

James Robinson, Sr., et al., and
u.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Plaintiffs,
v.
Ford Motor Company and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. - - - -

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

October 8, 2004

<'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. PREAMBLE

1

II. INTRODUCTION

1

III. DEFINITIONS

2

IV. PROGRAMMATIC RELIEF: REVISION OF APPRENTICE

TRAINING SELECTION PROCESS

5

V. REPORTING

11

VI. PLACEMENT ON APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY

LiST

12

VII. SPECIFIC MONETARY RELIEF

14

VIII. CONFIRMATORY DISCOVERY

15

IX. COURT APPROVAUNOTICE AND FAIRNESS HEARING

15

X. CLAIM PROCEDURE

19

XI. ATIORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

21

XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

22

XIII. NON-RETALIATION

24

XIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES

24

)\\I. GOVERNING LAW

24

)\\II. NO ADMISSION OF L1ABILlTY .;

24

)\\III. SUPPORT FOR AND DEFENSE OF SETILEMENT AGREEMENT 25

-1-

. • • • r,_

I. PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan
Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks, Gordon B. Rinfrow, Eric Barbee and Darnay Cheeks filed charges with the u.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), in October and November 1997, alleging that the test used by Ford Motor Company ("Ford" or the "Company") and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW") for the selection of apprentices has an adverse impact on African-American apprentice candidates;

WHEREAS, EEOC and Ford intend that this Settlement Agreement resolves all of EEOC's claims of disparate impact race discrimination against African-Americans under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding selection of apprentices at Ford facilities arising from January 1, 1997 until the date of the Preliminary Approval;

WHEREAS, eleven of the Charging Parties (defined as the Named Plaintiffs, below) retained counsel to proceed on their behalf as representatives of a putative class of African-American apprentice candidates;

WHEREAS, Ford and the UAW deny that the test is unlawful, and assert that the test was initially devised with the input of the EEOC;

WHEREAS, all parties agree that Ford requires highly-qualified apprentices because of the important safety and quality aspects of the skilled trade jobs;

WHEREAS, Ford is committed to equal employment opportunity and diversity in all aspects of employment and its workforce, including its apprentice selection procedures; and

WHEREAS, Ford, UAW, the Named Plaintiffs and EEOC now wish to resolve their dispute with respect to the apprentice selection procedure by devising state-of-the art selection instruments and taking the additional actions set forth below;

NOW. THEREFORE, Ford, UAW, the Named Plaintiffs, and EEOC

agree as follows:

.

II. INTRODUCTION

This Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") details the full and final terms by which (A) the Named Plaintiffs and their

1

undersigned counsel of record ("Settlement Class Counsel"), on behalf of the putative Settlement Class as defined below ("Settlement Class"); (B) the EEOC; (C) Ford; and (D) the UAW (Ford and UAW, collectively referred to as "Defendants") agree to settle all claims or potential claims of members of the Settlement Class (not including individuals who opt out) based on discrimination, against either or both Defendants during the Relevant Time Period, arising out of the selection of individuals for apprentice positions at Ford. This Settlement A greement will be submitted tot he United States District Court for approval pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and is contingent upon approval by the Court. This Settlement Agreement, if approved by the Court, fully and finally resolves all claims defined above that were or could have been brought in the above-styled action.

III. DEFINITIONS

The parties agree to the following definitions:

A. ATSS

ATSS means the Apprentice T raining Selection System test u sed at

Ford facilities as part of the selection process for apprentices during

the Relevant Time Period.

.

B. Black/African-American/of African descent

"Black;" "African-American," or "of African descent" shall be used throughout this document interchangeably and shall have the meaning established byE EOC for the term Black used with the E EO-1 Form
100.

C. Charging Parties

The Charging Parties are James Robinson, Sr., Gregory Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph Hendricks, Gordon Rinfrow, Eric Barbee and Darnay Cheeks.

D. Claim and Release

A claim and release form, attached as Exhibit A hereto, will be sent to
each Settlement Class member. Each Settlement Class member who
does not opt-out of the settlement class must complete and return. the.. .. clalm and release form to the claims administrator in order to receive" ... ,',. ...' -..
monetary relief.

2

E. Class Member Apprentice Eligible
Any member of the Settlement Class who is offered a place on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list pursuant to Section VI.A hereof.

F. Eligibility List
The Iist(s) of individuals maintained and used by Ford to offer individuals a place in apprentice classes.

G. Expert
The Expert is the mutually agreed upon industrial psychologist selected pursuant to Section IV.A hereof.

H. Final Approval

Final Approval occurs when the U.S. District court grants final approval

of the settlement.

.

I. Final and Binding Approval

The Settlement Agreement becomes final and binding at the expiration of the time period for filing appeals after Final Approval is granted, without an appeal having been filed, or at the exhaustion of all appeals.

J. Ford

For purposes of this settlement, "Ford Motor Company," also referred to as "Ford," or "the Company," shall be defined as any business, company or organization in the United States of which Ford Motor Company has fifty (50) percent or greater ownership. "Ford" does not include Visteon Corporation or any Visteon subsidiary, nor any facility operated by Visteon. "Ford" also does not include the Hertz Corporation. Ford will provide written notice to any potential purchaser of Ford's business, or all or a portion of a covered facility, and to any potential successor, of the obligations contained in this Settlement Agreement, and a statement that the obligations imposed on Ford in this Settlement Agreement extend to any new owner in the event of a transfer of ownership of Ford or a portion or all of its assets.

K. Named Plaintiffs

The Named -Plaintiffs are: James Robinson, Sr., Gregory Dicks, Robert S·. Payne, Robert Fails,· Jr., Jerome Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri Gaither, Joseph Hendricks, and Gordon Rinfrow.

. .-..,.: . .~

3

L. Opt-Out
An Opt-Out is any individual eligible to be in the Settlement Class who timely files and serves an opt-out notice pursuant to Section IX.C.6 hereof. Opt-outs are not entitled to any individual relief under this Agreement.
M. Preliminary Approval
Preliminary Approval means the order of the Court preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class and preliminarily approving this Settlement Agreement and the Notice to be sent to Settlement Class members.
N. Relevant Time Period
The Relevant Time Period means the period from January 1, 1997 to the date of Preliminary Approval.
O. Settlement Class
The Settlement Class is defined as: All current and former Ford employees of African descent who took the ATSS for placement as an apprentice at any Ford facility during the Relevant Time Period and were not placed on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list during the Relevant Time Period. The settlement class does not include current and former Ford employees who took the ATSS for placement as an apprentice at any facility that is now, or was at the time the test was taken, a Visteon facility.
Ford represents that it conducted an inquiry into the number of Settlement Class members, and that it estimates that there are approximately 3,420 Settlement Class members.
P. Settlement Class Counsel
Settlement Class Counsel are Cyrus Mehri and Lisa Bornstein of Mehri
& Skalet, PLLC; Nathaniel R. Jones of Blank Rome, LLP; Armand
Derfner of Derfner, Altman and Wilborn; Rhonda Whitted Maxwen·of:-····:The Law Office of Rhonda M. Maxwell; and Suzette Peyton of The Law . Offices of Tom Nebel, P.C. Settlement Class Counsel represent the . Named Plaintiffs, and, contingent upon Court approval, Will' represent" the Settlement Class.
4

Q. Term
The Term of this Settlement Agreement shall be three years from the date of Final and Binding Approval, with the option of extensions of up to a total of two years if, after any party requests an extension, the parties, or the Court (after exhaustion of the Dispute Resolution Procedure in Section XII hereof), determine that a reasonable basis exists for such an extension. This Settlement Agreement shall expire at the conclusion of the Term, including any extensions. All references to three years throughout this document shall be automatically updated to reflect any extensions granted pursuant hereto. The Court and the parties shall be notified if the Term is extended.
IV. PROGRAMMATIC RELIEF: REVISION OF APPRENTICE TRAINING SELECTION PROCESS
A. Appointment of a Jointly Selected Expert
Ford shall propose three well-qualified Industrial/Organizational Psychologists, each of whom is a licensed psychologist and a member of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology who has extensive experience in performing job analysis and developing and validating selection instruments and tests. One of those persons shall be selected as the "Expert" by the agreement of all parties prior to the Fairness Hearing. Approval of the Expert shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event that all candidates are found unacceptable to any party, Ford must provide three additional candidates. If the parties cannot agree upon a suitable candidate prior to the Fairness Hearing, the selection of the Expert will be determined pursuant to the Dispute Resolution procedure set forth in Section XII hereof. The Expert candidates must report any potential conflicts of interest, inclUding but not limited to business relationships, with any of the parties.
B. Work to Be Done By the Expert
The Expert will design and validate an apprentice selection instrument or instruments, consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP)1 and professional standards within the field of Industrial/Organizational Psychologf, for use by Ford for apprentice selection in all U.S. Ford facilities during the Term. The selection instruments designed by the Expert and all other work

129 CFR 14 §1607.

.

.

: ... ,.; .. " . ",_."

2 Professional standards may includebut are not limited to Societyfor Industrial Organizational Psychology, Inc. (2003) Principles for Validation and the Use of Personnel Selection Procedures·.- :---..--:... ::-.- : .::

("SlOP Principles"); American Educational Research Association, American Psychological

Association, and the National Councilon Measurement in Education (1999) standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.

5

,:
product of the Expert under this Settlement Agreement shall be and remain the sole and exclusive property of Ford. All time deadlines for work to be done by the Expert, set forth in Section IV hereof, shall be subject to modification upon consent of the parties or a showing to the Court (after exhaustion of the Dispute Resolution Procedure in Section XII hereof) of good cause or need.
1. Prior to initiating any work, the Expert will present a proposed budget to Ford for review. Ford will engage the Expert, negotiate terms, and pay all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the work of the Expert.
2. Apprentice job analysis
a. Within 180 days after Final and Binding Approval, the Expert will conduct a thorough job analysis of the jobs that are to be performed by apprentices covering each of the major trades used by Ford (other than trades with very few positions or little employee interest)." The job analysis will meet professional standards. The Expert will consider transportability
and generalizability in any validity study slhe
conducts.
b. Prior job analysis information concerning these trades may be used as a basis for updating the job analysis, unless the Expert determines that the trades as currently performed have changed sufficiently to require an entirely new job analysis.
c. The job analysis should be performed at a level of detail sufficient to identify similarities and differences in knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics ("KSAOs") among apprentices in different trades.
3. Apprenticeship Test Design
a. Following a review of the selection research literature,
the Expert will design or select selection instrument(s) intended to produce a desirable combination of (1) high validity across the widest array of KSAOs,. (2) minimum adverse impact against applicants in classes protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (3) demonstrated utility, and (4) ease of administration. The instrument(s) may include
3 The major trades at Ford are: electrical, millwright, plumber-pipefitter, machine repair, and tool and die.
6

multiple components. The mechanism of combining elements or instruments should be designed to maximize validity and minimize adverse impact against African-Americans. The preliminary design process will be completed within 90 days after the completion of the job analysis described in IV.B.2.a. above.
b. Sixty days from the completion of the job analysis described in IV.B.2.a. above, the Expert will provide an interim report, describing the results of the job analysis and the proposed new ATSS procedure. The parties will have fifteen (15) days to comment on the interim report. In light of the comments, the Expert may modify the new procedure prior to the start of the validation study described in Section IV.BA below.
c. The design of the selection instrument(s) will meet professional standards. The Expert will consider procedures including, but not limited to, trainability and simulation tests, structured interviews, and other alternatives to paper and pencil tests. Cognitive ability tests, including the current ATSS (or variations thereof) are not ruled out. The Expert shall review the professional testing research literature to identify selection methods described in the literature that have resulted in low disparate impact and strong validity for the jobs in the study.
d. The selection instrument(s) will be designed to enable Ford to provide employees with their individual final test results along with the required passing score, as well as providing feedback on their test results (except to the extent that professional standards call for no disclosure of results and/or feedback (e.g., with personality measures or biographical questionnaires, or during validation». Feedback will not include information on scoring of specific items that appear on tests, so that test security may be maintained. However, upon written request from a test-taker, the Company will tailor feedback for the individual to identify weaknesses based on particular types of . items (e.g., reading comprehension, mathematical problem SOlving, etc.) The test taking materials shall state the right of individual test takers to receive feedback upon written request.
7

.'
4. Validation Report
a. The Expert will begin to conduct a study of the validity of the selection instrument(s) that meets professional standards within 30 days after the close of the comment period in Section IV.a.3.b above. Ford will implement the selection instrument(s) as necessary for purposes of the validity study when the Expert determines it is appropriate to do so.
b. The Expert will complete the validity study within six months of beginning the study.
c. Within 90 days after the completion of the validity study, the Expert will prepare a Validation Report ('Validation Report") describing the validity study performed, and recommending selection instrument(s). The Validation Report will meet professional standards and will include information reflecting the pass/fail rates broken down by race for the newly designed apprentice selection instrument(s).
d. The Validation Report shall not include any opinion or comment concerning Ford's past use of an apprenticeship test battery and whether its former testing practices were lawful or whether they complied with applicable legal or professional standards.
5. Informal Reporting to the Parties
The Expert will provide, upon request of any party, informal progress reports to all parties, detailing the Expert's activities during that quarter. Such progress reports shall be issued no more than once each quarter.
6. Other Recommendations
a. The Expert may propose additional internal'
recruitment practices that Ford may incorporate into its recruitment program, as well as pre-exam , preparatory courses and post-exam feedback and analysis.
b. The Expert may also identify job and apprenticeship
related training classes that Ford may offer in order to better prepare applicants of African descent to compete for apprentice positions.
8

. ,,-.

C. Communication of Validation Report and Recommendation: Resolution of Disagreements: and Implementation of Selection Instrument(s)

1. The Validation Report, including recommended selection instrument(s), will be provided simultaneously to Ford, Settlement Class Counsel, EEOC and UAW for their review within 30 days after it is completed. Settlement Class Counsel and EEOC recognize that the Validation Report will include confidential business information of Ford, and therefore shall treat the Validation Report as confidential, and shall not disclose its contents except to the extent necessary to pursue the Dispute Resolution procedure set forth in Section XII hereof. Anyone who receives a copy of the Validation Report must sign a confidentiality agreement, attached as Exhibit C.

2. Ford, Settlement Class Counsel, EEOC and UAW shall have

sixty (60) days to submit comments about the Validation

Report and the recommended selection instrument(s) to all

parties and the Expert. The Expert will review these

comments. The Expert will modify the recommended

selection instrument(s) or Validation Report if the Expert

deems it is necessary to do so to meet professional

standards. The Expert will either issue a revised Validation

Report or a statement that a revision to the Validation Report

is unnecessary.

.

3. If EEOC, Settlement Class Counsel, UAW, or Ford assert that the proposed selection instrument(s) do not comply with applicable law or professional standards, the exclusive remedy for resolving that dispute shall be the Dispute Resolution mechanism, culminating in Court review, set forth in Section XII hereof. An objection to the proposed selection instrument(s) must be served on the other parties within thirty (30) days after receipt of the Expert's revised Validation Report or statement that a revision of the Validation Report is unnecessary.

4. Ford shall implement, for use in connection with apprentice selections at all Ford facilities nationwide, selection instrument(s) based on the recommendation of the Expert, within sixty (60) days after the Expert submits his/her .recommendations for a new selection instrument(s), unless relief is obtained through the dispute resolution mechanism. If the dispute resolution mechanism is triggered, Ford will implement the Expert's recommendations within sixty (60)

9

days after the conclusion of the dispute resolution mechanism and all appeals with respect to the selection instrument(s), unless the dispute resolution mechanism results in an agreement or a final Court order that Ford is not to implement such selection instrument(s).

D. Access by the Expert

Subject to signing an appropriate confidentiality agreement, in the form attached as Exhibit C, and upon reasonable advance notice, the Expert will have reasonable access to documents, data and
Ford employees as necessary.

E. Interim Selection Method

1. Ford agrees that, upon Final and Binding Approval of the Settlement Agreement, it will cease the use of the current ATSS for the selection of apprentices at Ford facilities in the U.S. (except as set forth in Section IV.B.3.c, IV.E.2, VI.A.2 and VI.B.1 hereof).

2. Until the new selection instrument(s) are adopted (for purposes of validation or thereafter), Ford may select additional individuals to add to Ford apprenticeship program eligibility lists only through one of the following processes: a) the Settlement Class members and Charging Parties identified pursuant to Section VI; b) only after all individuals eligible through part a) have been selected, interim selection instrument(s) recommended by the Expert ("Interim Selection Method") for use until the new selection instrument(s) are implemented. The-Expert may consider and may recommend as the Interim Selection Method the current ATSS with such enhancements or modifications as the Expert may recommend to reduce adverse impact while maintaining validity.

3. The EEOC shall not bring or participate in an enforcement

action against Ford and/or UAW (as a party, intervenor or

amicus curiae) with regard to the Interim Selection Method.

This paragraph shall not prevent any party from enforcing

this Settlement Agreement pursuant to the dispute resolution

procedure set forth in Section XII hereof, inclUding the right

of any party to invoke the dispute resolution procedure

regarding compliance of the Interim Selection Method with

professional standards.

-

10

- ..
F. Inclusive Internal Recruitment Component
Ford will identify and implement procedures and methods for the identification, positive recruitment, and motivation of present and potential minority and female candidates for the apprenticeship program. These efforts may include outreach within Ford for positive recruitment and preparation of potential applicants for apprenticeships, and preapprenticeship and preparatory trade training for candidates and automatic post-test feedback.
V. REPORTING
A. Ongoing analysis
The Expert will continue to conduct and document the results of validity studies of the new selection instrument(s) throughout the term of the Settlement Agreement as determined by the Expert to be necessary to meet professional standards.
B. Implementation
Ford will implement all recommendations of follow-up reviews and studies provided by the Expert during the period of the analysis, within sixty (60) days from the date of the recommendation's publication. However, if the dispute resolution mechanism is triggered with respect to a particular recommendation, Ford will be exempt from implementing that recommendation until the dispute is Ultimately resolved. Once the dispute is resolved, Ford shall implement the disputed recommendation unless, based on the outcome of the dispute resolution mechanism, Ford need not implement that recommendation.
C. Annual Reports
1. Each year during the term of the Settlement Agreement, the Expert will prepare and submit to Ford, EEOC, UAW, and Settlement Class Counsel an annual Report ("Report") with respect to the items required of the Expert by this Settlement Agreement. The Report will include:
a. The progress made by the Expert in job analysis, design and validation of the selection instrument(s);
b. Recommendations, if any, made by the Expert with respect to modification of the selection instrument(s);
11

c. Identification of all Charging Parties and Settlement Class members who have been offered a place on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list;
d. After the new selection instrument(s) has been implemented: (1) the number of African-American Ford candidates who took the new instrument(s), (2) the number of non-African-American Ford candidates who took the new instrument(s), (3) the number of African-American Ford candidates who passed the new instrument(s), and (4) the number of non-AfrlcanAmerican Ford candidates who passed the new instrument(s).
e. The Expert will recommend whether any follow-up reviews and/or validity studies·are required.
2. Upon written request from EEOC, Counsel for the Named Plaintiffs or Counsel for UAW, Ford will provide raw scores, race, location and testing date, and passing scores on the new instrument(s) to Counsel for EEOC, Counsel for the Named Plaintiffs and Counsel for UAW. This information shall be provided in electronic format, with identifier explanations describing the meaning·ofthe fields and codes. Hard copy versions will be available upon request. This information shall be reviewed only by counsel and their designated expert(s), and shall be maintained confidentially by the parties receiving it. This information and all copies of it shall be returned to Ford upon written request made no earlier than sixty (60) days after the information was provided.
VI. PLACEMENT ON APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY LIST
A. Settlement Class Members
1. Ford will select 276 members of the Settlement Class and offer them a place on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list, as set forth below.
2. Ford will select the Class Member Apprentice Eligibles using
criteria it determines are likely to result in selection of the Settlement Class members likely to succeed as apprentices. Such criteria may include the test score on the previous ATSS or on an instrument being validated, as well as other factors including seniority, job performance, education, and
12

prior work experience. Ford will provide to the other parties a list of the criteria it uses for this selection.
3. Ford will select the first fifty (50) percent of the Class Member Apprentice Eligibles within six (6) months of Final and Binding Approval. Ford will select an additional twentyfive (25) percent of the Class Member Apprentice Eligibles no later than six (6) months thereafter. Ford will select the final twenty-five (25) percent of the Class Member Apprentice Eligibles no later than twelve (12) months thereafter.
4. Once placed on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list, the Class Member Apprentice Eligibles on the list will be subject to the same rules as all others on the list, including but not limited to: (a) the same number and scope of apprenticeship choices; (b) the same priority placement rights with respect to individuals placed on the list after the Settlement Class members; (c) the same rights to remain on the list until placed; and (d) the collective bargaining agreement and Department of Labor Apprentice Standards.
5. Without prior consent of plaintiffs' counsel, which will not be unreasonably withheld, the newly devised selection procedure may not be used by Ford to select eligible individuals who are not Settlement Class members to be placed on the apprenticeship eligibility list until all Class Member Apprentice Eligibles have been offered a place on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall prevent Ford from offering apprenticeship program positions to individuals other than Class Member Apprentice Eligibles when the Expert determines that doing so is appropriate in connection with validation of the new selection instrument.
B. Charging Parties
1. Charging party James Robinson has already been. placed on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list. Two additional Charging Parties will be offered a place on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility Ii"st no later than twelve (12) months after Final and Binding Approval. A third additional Charging Party will be offered a place on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list as soon as practicable after Mr. Robinson and the two Charging Parties described in the preceding sentence, but in no event later than twenty four (24) months from the date of Final and Binding
13

'.
Approval. These three additional Charging Parties will be selected using criteria Ford determines are likely to result in selection of the Charging Parties likely to succeed as apprentices. Such criteria may include the test score on the previous ATSS or on an instrument being validated, as well as other factors including seniority, job performance, education, and prior work experience. Ford will provide to the other parties a list of the criteria it uses for this selection.
2. The three Charging Parties selected for the apprentice eligibility list and Mr. Robinson will receive guidance from Ford in order to secure apprenticeship positions expeditiously.
VII. SPECIFIC MONETARY RELIEF
A. Settlement Class Member Relief
To satisfy monetary claims for each Settlement Class member arising out of the apprentice selection process, Ford will pay $2,400 to each Settlement Class member and/or his/her heirs who submits a properly executed claim and release pursuant to Section X.B hereof.
B. Charging Parties Incentive
For diligently initiating and prosecuting these claims, and for participating in the EEOC conciliation process, each Charging Party who submits a properly executed claim and release pursuant to Section X.C. hereof will receive $30,000 in lieu of the $2,400 payment to Settlement Class mernbers..
C. Nature of Payments
None of the payments pursuant to this Settlement Agreement shall be counted toward pension accruals or other Ford benefits. At the time payment is made, the Company will issue a form W-2, subject to lawful withholding, to each Settlement Class member who is a current Ford employee, and will issue a form 1099 to each Settlement Class member who is no longer a Ford employee. Included with the check in the net amount due the Settlement Class member will be a statement showing the gross (pre-tax) amount of the payment, along with an itemized statement of any deductions made. Deductions may be made only for the employees' federal and state income taxes, the employee's share of FICA and FUTA for that portion of amount due, if any, that is backpay, and any local income tax thatapplies to the employees and any other deductions required by law. Ford will not deduct its share of Social Security and Medicare contributions from the payments due the Settlement Class members and Charging Parties, should it be determined that all or any of these sums is, was or
14

" ,
'.

should have been taxable as wages. Any employer payroll taxes or employer contributions required to be paid by the employer shall be paid by Ford.
VIII. CONFIRMATORY DISCOVERY
Within twenty (20) days of the execution of this Settlement Agreement, and for settlement purposes only, a Company official(s) will submit an appropriate affidavit(s) to the parties in order to establish the factual record for the Fairness Hearing in this matter. If Settlement Class Counselor the EEOC want additional information, they can request further substantiation. If the parties cannot agree on what will be provided, they may use the dispute resolution mechanism set forth in Section XII of this Settlement Agreement.
IX. COURT APPROVAUNOTICEAND FAIRNESS HEARING
A. Jurisdiction and Venue
1. The parties agree that the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and that venue is proper.
2. The parties agree that conditions precedent to suit by EEOC pursuant to this Settlement Agreement are satisfied, and the parties to this Settlement Agreement waive defenses to suit by EEOC pursuant to this Agreement based on the failure of conciliation between the EEOC, Ford and UAW.
B. Preliminary Approval
1. Within forty-five (45) days after execution of this Settlement Agreement, the parties will agree on a form for sending written notice of this Settlement Agreement to Settlement Class members.
2. Within forty-five (45) days after this Settlement Agreement has been fully executed, Settlement Class Counsel shall file a complaint(s) and petition the Court for an order (1) preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class; and (2) preliminarily approving this Settlement Agreement, the Consent Order relating to this Settlement Agreement· attached as Exhibit B hereto, and the Notice to be sent to Settlement Class members describing the terms of the settlement and informing them of their rights to submit objections and to opt out. The Consent Order and Notice must be approved by all parties prior to submission to the Court for approval.
15

.'
,
3. Within forty-five (45) days after this Settlement Agreement has been fully executed by the parties, EEOC will file a Complaint and petition the Court for approval of this Settlement Agreement.
C. Notice and Fairness Hearing
1. Settlement Class Counsel and Ford will jointly select a Claims Administrator.
2. Ford will make reasonable and diligent efforts to identify all Settlement Class members and will provide to a mutually agreed upon claims administrator, prior to the preliminary approval hearing, the name,last known address and social security number of each Settlement Class member.
3. Within twenty (20) days after Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement, the claims administrator will send written notice to each member of the Settlement Class in the form agreed upon by the parties or such other form as approved by the Court. The Parties intend to provide actual notice to each Settlement Class member, to the extent practicable.
4. The notice and claim process will be at Ford's expense, including first-class mail to the last known address in Ford's records, unless the Company has been notified of a change of address. The Company shall make all reasonable efforts to update those records to obtain actual current mailing addresses. Any Notices returned as undelivered shall be promptly turned over to the claims administrator for additional transmittal efforts. The claims administrator may engage third party vendors or shall turn over to Settlement Class Counsel and the EEOC the list of those who have not been located for additional efforts to locate Settlement Class members. The claims administrator will maintain a log of its activities undertaken pursuant to this section. Any party may request a copy of this log.
5. Objections to this Settlement Agreement must be submitted in writing, and must include a detailed description of the basis for the objection. Objections must be filed with the Court, with copies served on Settlement Class Counsel, EEOC, Ford and UAW, within forty-five (45) days after the Notice was sent to Settlement Class members. No one may. ,. appear at the Fairness Hearing for the purpose of objecting to the Settlement Agreement without.first having filed and
16

served his or her objections in writing within forty-five (45) days after the Notice was sent to Settlement Class members.
6. Any person eligible for the Settlement Class who wishes to opt out of the Settlement Class need only mail a written, signed statement that he or she is opting out. To be effective, this opt-out statement must be received by either Ford or Settlement Class Counsel within forty-five (45) days after the Notice was sent to Settlement Class members. Ford or Settlement Class Counsel shall serve on other parties and file with the Court all opt-out notices that are timely received. The Settlement Class does not include those individuals who file and serve a timely opt-out statement, and individuals who opt out are not entitled to any individual relief under this Settlement Agreement. With respect to each such individual, the statute of limitations for him or her to assert any claims for individual relief will resume running on the date of Final Approval. The Notice to Settlement Class members mentioned above shall include the following: "Any person eligible for the Settlement Class who wishes to opt out of the Settlement Class must mail a written; signed statement that he or she is opting out of the Settlement Class to Ford and Settlement Class Counsel at the addresses as listed in this Notice. To be effective, this opt-out statement must be received by either Ford or Settlement Class Counsel within forth-five (45) days after the Notice was sent to Settlement Class members."
7. Upon Preliminary Approval, a briefing schedule and Fairness Hearing date will be scheduled at the Court's convenience. Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval and for Certification of the Settlement Class will be due no earlier than thirty (30) days following the close of the objection and opt-out period, and the Fairness Hearing will be held no earlier than forty-five (45) days following the close of the objection and opt-out period.
8. In the event that this Settlement Agreement does not . become Final and Binding, no party shall be deemed to waive any objections, rights or defenses, including, but not limited to, claims or objections to class certification, and claims and defenses on the merits. Neither this Settlement Agreement nor the Court's Preliminary or Final Approval hereof shall be admissible in any court regarding the propriety of class certification or regarding any other issue or subject (except for the purpose of enforcing this Settlement
17

...
..'

Agreement). Each party reserves the right to prosecute or defend this action in the event that the Settlement Agreement does not go into effect. By entering into this Settlement Agreement, no party waives its claims, defenses, legal arguments or positions if the Settlement Agreement does not attain Final and Binding Approval. If the District Court declines to approve the Settlement Agreement unless the Parties make modifications to it, any of the Parties shall have the right to withdraw from the Settlement Agreement, and the Settlement Agreement shall be terminated and null and void, provided that the Party seeking to exercise such right of withdrawal does so through written notice to the other Parties not later than 60 days after the District Court advises the Parties of the modifications it requires.
D. Scope of Judicial Release
1. Upon Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Ford and UAW, and each of their operating divisions and subsidiaries, and all of their respective directors, officers, managers, agents, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and anyone acting in concert with or on behalf of any of them, and their respective pension, profit-sharing, savings and other employee benefit plans of whatsoever nature and those plans' respective trustees and administrators (and each of their agents, directors, officers, employees, affiliates, and members), shall be fully released and forever discharged from any and all individual and/or class-wide claims, demands, charges, complaints, rights and causes of action of any kind, known or unknown, by the Charging Parties, by the Settlement Class Counsel, and by each member of the Settlement Class, whether seeking monetary and/or equitable relief of any sort, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys' fees or expenses and expert fees and expenses, which arise out of or are related to any conduct through the date of Preliminary Approval allegedly constituting discrimination in apprentice selection, whether under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 or any other Federal, State or Local law (whether by statute, regulation, ordinance or common law) prohibiting discrimination. This release is final and shall survive the .~xpiration of the Settlement Agreement's Term.
2. Upon Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Ford and
UAW, and each of their operating divisions and subsidiaries, and all of their respective directors, officers, managers, agents, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and
18

anyone acting in concert with or on behalf of any of them, and their respective pension, profit-sharing, savings and other employee benefit plans of whatsoever nature and those plans' respective trustees and administrators (and each of their agents, directors, officers, employees, affiliates, and members), shall be fully released and forever discharged from EEOC's claims of disparate impact race discrimination against African Americans and further be released and forever discharged from EEOC's potential claims of disparate treatment race discrimination against African Americans arising from the pending charges of discrimination referred to in the first paragraph of this Settlement Agreement's Preamble and listed by charge number in Exhibit 0, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in the selection of apprentices by Ford through the date of Preliminary Approval.

3. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to limit the right of plaintiffs, Settlement Class Counsel, or the EEOC to bring an appropriate action 'against Visteon, Hertz, or any other company or entity not covered by this Settlement Agreement.

4. Except as set forth in Section IV.E.3 or in a release executed by a Charging Party or a member of the Settlement Class, nothing in the Settlement Agreement shall be construed to bar any claims of members of the Settlement Class or Charging Parties based on or arising' out of events occurring after the date of Preliminary Approval.
x. CLAIM PROCEDURE

A. Transmission of Forms to Class Members

1. Within thirty (30) days after Final and Binding Approval, the

claims administrator will send to each Settlement Class

member a package containing a Claim and Release form in

the form of Exhibit A. Packages will be returned to the

claims administrator, and the claims administrator will

attempt to resend any packages which are returned as

undelivered.

.

B. Submission of Forms By Settlement Class Members

1. To receive monetary relief pursuant to Section VII hereof, Settlement Class members must, within six (6) months after the date the forms are mailed, deliver to the claims

19

administrator a fully executed Claim and Release in the Court approved form provided in Exhibit A without material alteration. Any Settlement Class member who fails to deliver to the claims administrator a fully executed Claim and Release in the Court approved form provided in Exhibit A without material alteration within six (6) months after the forms are mailed shall forfeit all entitlement to monetary relief under this Settlement Agreement. A Settlement Class member may seek permission to submit a claim and release form up to one year after the date of mailing upon a showing of inability to have filed the form within the six months.
2. On a rolling basis, on the first Friday of each month (or another date agreed upon by all parties) in which valid Claim and Release forms are returned to the administrator, the claims administrator will deliver to Ford's counsel: (a) all of the fully executed Claim and Release forms received from Settlement Class members within the previous month; and (b) the last known address of each of the Settlement Class members who submitted such timely claim and release forms.
3. On a rolling basis, once each calendar quarter, Ford will send a check in the amount provided. in Section VII hereof to _
a each Settlement Class member eligible to receive check to
whom a check has not already been sent, pursuant to the terms hereof.
C. Submission of Forms By Charging Parties
1. To receive monetary relief pursuant to Section VII hereof, each Charging Party must, within fou.r (4) months after the forms were mailed out, deliver to the claims administrator a fully executed Claim and Release in the Court approved,
unaltered form provided in Exhibit A. Any Charging Party
who fails to deliver to the claims administrator a fully executed Claim and Release in the Court approved, unaltered form provided in Exhibit A within four (4) months after the forms were mailed out shall forfeit all entitlement to monetary relief under this Settlement Agreement.
2. On a rolling basis, on the first Friday of each month through---" ..__.. _-- ~< .. five (5) months after Final and Binding Approval, the claims admlnlstratorwlll deliver to Ford's counsel: (a) all of the fully executed Claim and Release forms in the Court approved, unaltered form provided in Exhibit A that were received from Charging Parties within four (4) months after Final Approval;
20

and (b) the last known address of each of the Charging Parties who submitted such timely claim and release forms.

3. On a rolling basis, once each calendar quarter, Ford will send a check in the amount provided in Section VII hereof to each Charging Party eligible to receive a check to whom a check has not already been sent, pursuant to the terms hereof.

XI. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSE~

A. Ford will pay settlement class counsel a sum of One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,OOO.00) in attorneys' fees and
expenses to compensate Settlement Class Counsel for prosecuting this case through the date of Final Approval. Ford will make such payment thirty (30) days after Final and Binding Approval of the Settlement Agreement.

B. Ford will pay Settlement Class Counsel a sum of Five Hundred
Sixty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($567,000.00) in fees and expenses for the work that Settlement Class Counsel will perform implementing and monitoring the settlement over the term of the Settlement Agreement. In the event that there is no appeal, this payment shall be made one year after the district court enters an order of Final Approval. In the event that there is an appeal, this payment shall be made ninety (90) days after Final and Binding Approval.

C. Ford does not oppose Settlement Class Counsel's entitlement to
the fee/cost awards in Sections A. and B. above, nor does Ford
contest the reasonableness of the awards.

D. It is the intention of the parties to demarcate clearly between

settlement proceeds in which the members of the Settlement Class

have an interest, and Settlement Class Counsel fees and

expenses, in which members of the Settlement Class have no

interest. Settlement Class Counsel fees and expenses are sums

that have not been earned by the Settlement Class and solely

represent work performed by attorneys paid as authorized by

federal statute and court order. Accordingly, the amount paid

separately to Settlement Class Counsel for Settlement Class

Counsel fees and expenses is independent of and apart from the

amounts the Company paid to members of the Settlement Class,

.,

and members of the Settlement Class shallat no time have any

interest in Settlement Class Counsel fees and expenses. Except

as expressly provided herein, the Company makes no

21

.',
representations regarding and shall have no responsibility for the tax treatment of the foregoing attorneys' fees and expenses,
XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. General
1. The dispute resolution procedure set forth herein shall be the exclusive remedy for any disputes among the parties with respect to compliance with this Settlement Agreement. This tiectlon ot the setnement Agreement IS valid, and all references to this Section in this Settlement Agreement from the time this Settlement Agreement is executed, including any time prior to the Court's granting of Final Approval, shall be followed. As set forth herein, the parties will work diligently and in good faith to resolve such disputes among themselves, if necessary, with the facilitation of a Mediator. If mediation fails to resolve all disputes at issue, the parties agree to submit the disputes to binding resolution by the Court pursuant to the terms hereof.
B. Informal Process
1. If Settlement Class Counsel, EEOC, Ford or UAW has good reason to believe that a legitimate dispute exists during the Term, the initiating party or parties shall first attempt to meet and confer in order to resolve the dispute. If such efforts do not resolve the dispute, the initiating party or parties shall promptly give written notice to the other party or parties, including (a) a reference to all specific provisions of this Settlement Agreement that are claimed to have been violated; (b) a statement of the issue(s); (c) a statement of the remedial action sought by the initiating party; and (d) a brief statement of the specific facts, circumstances and any arguments supporting the position of the initiating party(ies).
2. Within forty-five (45) days after receiving such notice, the non-initiating party(ies) shall respond in writing and shall provide its written position, including the facts and arguments on which it relies in support of its position.
3. All of the parties shall then undertake good faith
negotiations, which should include a meeting by telephone or in person, in a determined effort to resolve-the areas of dispute without judicial involvement.
22

C. Mediation
1. The parties shall name and engage Kenneth Feinberg, of The Feinberg Group, Washington, D.C., the standing mediator to assist the parties in their good faith efforts to resolve disputes or disagreements concerning obligations, or material compliance, with this Settlement Agreement.
2. If the dispute is not resolved through discussions between the parties, then any party shall have the right to initiate a mediation to assist with resolving the dispute. A party shall not initiate a mediation unless it has a) attempted in good faith to resolve the dispute informally; and b) a good faith, non-frivolous basis for its position in the dispute.
3. The services of the mediator will be paid for by the Company.
D. Judicial Enforcement
1. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the Term solely to enter orders authorized hereunder that are necessary to implement and enforce this Settlement Agreement. 4 This Court shall not have jurisdiction pursuant to this Settlement Agreement after the last day of the Term. However, the Court will retain jurisdiction over any disputes that arise within the Term, regardless of whether or not the Term has expired, where the dispute was raised during the Term of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure. Except with respect to the retention of jurisdiction as set forth in this Section, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice immediately upon Final Approval.
2. If good faith efforts to resolve the matter have failed, and after written notice of "impasse" to the non-initiating party or parties, Settlement Class Counsel, EEOC, Ford or UAW may file a motion with the Court, with a supporting brief, requesting enforcement of this Settlement Agreement, provided, however, that such motion shall be limited to the dispute(s) as to which the "informal process" and "mediation" provisions of Sections XII.B and XII.C have been exhausted.
3. The non-moving party(ies) will have thirty (30) days to respond to any such motion-.
4 The Parties intend by this paragraph to vest this Court with jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
23

-,
XIII. NON-RETALIATION Ford and UAW will not retaliate against any Settlement Class member for filing a claim for relief available under this Settlement Agreement. This provision does not limit Ford's ability to take action with respect to Settlement Class members for any non-retaliatory reason, including but not limited to poor performance in apprenticeship.
XIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES The Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties arising out of, or related to, the selection of apprentices at Ford. This Settlement Agreement cannot be amended or modified except with the express written consent of all parties and approval by the Court. All parties acknowledge that upon Final and Binding Approval, this Settlement Agreement is binding.
XV. GOVERNING LAW This Settlement Agreement shall be govemed by Federal law. To the extent that any state law is deemed to apply, it shall be the law of the state of Michigan, except for its law with respect to conflicts of law.
XVI. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY Neither the Settlement Agreement, its Court approval, nor any action taken pursuant to its or their terms shall be considered by any Party or any other person as an admission of liability or wrongdoing. This Settlement Agreement and the order(s) approving it shall not be admissible as evidence in any court or administrative forum for any purpose other than 1) an action by one of the parties to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure herein, or 2) demonstration by Ford and/or UAW that relief rece-ived and/or rights relinquished by any person in connection with this Settlement Agreement preclude that person's right to proceed, and/or reduce relief available to that person, in any other matter against Ford and/or UAW.
24

XVII. SUPPORT FOR AND DEFENSE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The Class Representatives, Class Counsel, EEOC, UAW and the Company each agree to abide by all of the terms of this Settlement Agreement in good faith and to support it fully, and shall use their respective best efforts to defend this Settlement Agreement from any legal challenge, whether by appeal, collateral attack or otherwise.

Si ned this J.nd_daYOf~O~4>

,

i .:':

-::--=:::........:='?""'-:1~~-+-;£-' l1 r I

Cyrus ehrl

Mehri & Skalet, PLLC

On behalf of Named Plaintiffs

('

-

..'

~

Oliver C. Mitchell, Jr.

On behalf of Ford Motor Company

Wilma L. Jave On behalf of the U.S. qual Employment Opportunity Commission

25

EXHIBIT A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION

James Robinson, Sr., et aI., and

u.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Civil Action No.

_

Commission

Plaintiffs,

v.

Ford Motor Company and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,

Defendants.

STATE OF

)

)

COUNTY OF

)

CLAIM AND RELEASE FOR CLAIMANTS

This Full and Final Release of Claims ("Release") is made and

entered into this _ day of _ _,20_, by

_

Social Security Number

, himself/herself, and

his/her dependents, heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns

("Claimant").

Whereas, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("EEOC" or the "Commission") and eleven current or former Ford

employees filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Ohio (Civil Action No.

) (the "Lawsuit"), alleging that Ford

Motor Company ("Ford" or the "Company") and the United Automobile,

Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW") used a

selection test for seleoting apprentices that had an adverse impact on-African;.--- -..--

American applicants during the period from January 1, 1997 to

[the

date of preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement];

1

.
,

Whereas the Court has certified a Settlement Class of African-

American current and former Ford employees who during the period from

January 1, 1997 to

[the date of preliminary Court approval of the

Settlement Agreement] took the Apprentice Training Selection System test

("ATSS") for placement as an apprentice at a Ford facility and were not placed on

a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list;

Whereas the Claimant is an African-American current or former

Ford employee who, during the period from January 1, 1997 to

[the

date of preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement], took the

Apprentice Training Selection System test ("ATSS") for placement as an

apprentice at a Ford facility and was not placed on a Ford apprenticeship

program eligibility list; and

Whereas EEOC, representatives of the Settlement Class, Ford and

UAW have reached a settlement resolving the Lawsuit, pursuant to a Settlement

Agreement dated

("Settlement Agreement"), which was given

approval by the Court on

, and Claimant is entitled to seek

relief under that Settlement;

Now therefore, in consideration of the relief provided under the Settlement Agreement, the sufficiency of which is hereby expressly acknowledged, Claimant releases and waives claims against Ford and/or UAW as follows:

1. Claimant hereby fully, finally, irrevocably, unconditionally and forever releases Ford (as defined in Section III.J. of the Settlement Agreement) and UAW, and each of their operating divisions and subsidiaries, (but not including any entity that is not covered by the Settlement Agreement) and all of their respective directors, officers, managers, agents, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and anyone acting in concert with or on behalf of any of them, and their respective pension, profit-sharing, savings and other employee benefit plans of whatsoever nature and those plans' respective trustees and administrators (and each of their agents, directors, officers, employees, affiliates, and members), from any and all individual and/or class-wide claims, demands, charges, complaints, rights and causes of action of any kind, known or unknown, by the Claimant, whether seeking monetary and/or equitable relief of any sort, including but not limited to any claim for attorneys' fees or expenses and expert fees and expenses, which arise out of or are related to any conduct through _ _ _ _ _ _ [the date of Final Approval] allegedly constituting discrimination in apprenticeship selection, whether under Title VII of the Civil . Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 or any other Federal, State or Local law (Whether by statute, regulation, ordinance or common law) prohibiting'" ,,"--,-- - '-" .----discrimination.

2

EXHIBIT B
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION

James Robinson, Sr., et aI., and

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Civil Action No.

_

Commission

Plaintiffs,

v.

Ford Motor Company and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,

Defendants.

CONSENT ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and eleven individuals for approval of the settlement of a class action race discrimination suit against Ford Motor Company ("Ford" or the "Company") and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAWn) .
James Robinson, Sr., Gregory A. Dicks, Robert S. Payne, Robert Fails, Jr., Jerome R. Harris, Karthan Norman, Johnathan Glover, Sheilah Brackett, Terri
Gaither, Joseph W. Hendricks, Gordon B. Rinfrow, Eric Barbee and Damay Cheeks filed charges with the EEOC, in October and November 1997, alleging that the test used by Ford and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW") for the selection of apprentices has an adverse impact on African-American apprentice candidates;
WHEREAS, EEOC and Ford intend that this Settlement Agreement resolves a1l: --._:~. ._ . of EEOC's claims of disparate impact race discrimination against AfricanAmericans under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding selection of apprentices at Ford-facilities arising from January 1, 1997 until the date of the---·-···::· -.. -Preliminary Approval;

1

Eleven of the Charging Parties ("Named Plaintiffs") retained counsel to proceed on their behalf as representatives of a putative class of African-American apprentice candidates;

Ford and the UAW deny that the test is unlawful, and assert that the test was initially devised with the input of the EEOC;

All parties agree that Ford requires highly-qualified apprentices because of the important safety and quality aspects of the skilled trade jobs;

Ford is committed to equal employment opportunity and diversity in all aspects of employment and its workforce, including its apprentice selection procedures; and

Ford, UAW, the Named Plaintiffs (on behalf of the class) and EEOC now wish to resolve their dispute with respect to the apprentice selection procedure by devising state-of-the art selection instruments and taking the additional actions set forth in the Settlement Agreement between the parties, executed on August _ , 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit __;

The Court held a fairness hearing, after notice and an opportunity to be heard on

_ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2004. As set forth in greater detail in the Court's Order of

_ _~

, 200_, the Court has found that the proposed

settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and has approved the proposed

settlement and certified the Settlement Class;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

The following Articles of the Settlement Agreement are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Order as if set forth in full herein, and all parties shall comply with them: Articles II-VII, IX.A, IX.D, X-XIII and XVI.

Entered on:' - - - - - - - -

United States District Judge:: :--::-_:::: '

"

.,

. ...' ~.'

2

EXHIBIT C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION

James Robinson, Sr., et aI., and
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Plaintiffs,
v.
Ford Motor Company and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. - - - -

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

Whereas, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("EEOC" or the "Commission") and eleven current or former Ford

employees filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Ohio (Civil Action No.

) (the "Lawsuit"), alleging that Ford

Motor Company ("Ford" or the "Company") and the United Automobile,

Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW") used a test

for selecting apprentices that had an adverse impact on African-American

applicants during the period from January 1, 1997 to

[the date of

preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement];

Whereas, Ford and UAW have denied the allegations of EEOC and the plaintiffs;

Whereas, the Court has approved a settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") that includes retention of an expert industrial organization psychologist (the "Expert") to conduct research and to prepare and validate selection instrument(s);

Whereas, the Expert will need access to confidential information from Ford to perform-the function assigned by the Settlement Agreement, and :-0-_--_0-:-: : _-_0-_---: :o--_:-c:-reports prepared by the Expert will include confidential information, and it is

1

\
recognized that this confidential information should be protected from public disclosure;
Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and within the Settlement Agreement, the sufficiency of which is hereby expressly acknowledged, the undersigned agrees as follows:
1. Confidential Information
"Confidential Information" includes all information obtained from Ford by the Expert, or developed by the Expert, in performance of tasks connected with the Settlement Agreement.
2. Treatment of Confidential Information
(a) Confidential Information shall be held in strict confidence and shall be used solely for the purposes of performing tasks under the Settlement Agreement. The undersigned individual will not disclose Confidential Information to anyone other than Ford's duly designated representative, Ford counsel, UAW counsel, EEOC counselor Settlement Class Counsel. Prior to disclosure to anyone other than Ford's representative, Ford counsel, UAW counsel, EEOC counselor Settlement Class Counsel, the underslqned.wilt.. ensure that the individual to whom Confidential Information will be disclosed has executed this Confidentiality Agreement.
(b) The undersigned shall maintain a written record of its disclosures of Confidential Information.
(c) No copies or reproductions of any Confidential Information (or of any portion of such Confidential Information) shall be made except as necessary for purposes of performing tasks under the Settlement Agreement.
(d) Upon written request by Ford, and for good cause shown, the undersigned, and all individuals to whom Confidential Information has been disclosed, will promptly return to Ford the Confidential Information and all copies in his or her custody, possession or control. If the Confidential Information is maintained in electronic, digital or magnetic form, the undersigned individual will remove and completely and permanently destroy such material' (and all copies and/or portions of it) from all electronic, digital or magnetic storage and any other medium in which it is resident in memory.
(e) If the undersigned individual is requested by judicial, administrative or other governmental process to disclose any Confidential Information, said individual will provide Ford with prompt notice of
2

· 'I

the request so that Ford may seek, at its expense, an appropriate protective order (with no objection by said individual). 3. If any provision of this Confidentiality Agreement is not enforceable in whole or in part, the remaining provisions of this Confidentiality Agreement will not be affected by the unenforceability of that provision. No failure or delay in exercising any right, power or privilege in this Confidentiality Agreement will operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right, power or privilege preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any right, power or privilege in this Confidentiality Agreement. Signed this _ day of _ _, 20_.
[signature] [typed or handwritten name]
3

• j"

EXHIBIT 0
FORD APPRENTICESHIP CHARGES

220-1998-00244 220-1998-01315 221-1999-00130 221-1999-00131 221-1999-00132 221-1999-00133 221-1999-00134 221-1999-00135 221-1999-00136 221-1999-00137 221-1999-00138 221-1999-00139 221-1999-00140 221-1999-00141 221-1999-00142 221-1999-00143 221-1999-00144 221-1999-00145 221-1999-00146 221-1999-00147 221-1999-00148 221-1999-00149 221-1999--00150 221-1999-00151 221-1999-00152 221-1999-00153 221-1999--00154 221-1999-00161 221-1999-00162 221-1999-00163 221-1999-00164 221-1999-00165 221-1999-00169 221-1999-00170 221-1999-00171 221-1999-00172 221-1999-00173 221-1999-00213 221-1999-00214

BARBEE, ERIC CHEEKS,DARNAY ROBINSON, JAMES ROBINSON, JAMES ROBINSON, JAMES ROBINSON, JAMES ROBINSON, JAMES BRACKEn, SHEILAH BRACKEn, SHEILAH BRACKEn, SHEILAH BRACKEn, SHEILAH BRACKEn, SHEILAH DICKS, GREGORY DICKS, GREGORY DICKS, GREGORY DICKS, GREGORY DICKS, GREGORY NORMAN, KARTHAN NORMAN, KARTHAN NORMAN, KARTHAN NORMAN, KARTHAN NORMAN, KARTHAN RINFROW, GORDON RINFROW, GORDON RINFROW, GORDON RINFROW, GORDON RINFROW, GORDON GAITHER, TERRI GAITHER, TERRI GAITHER, TERRI GAITHER, TERRI GAITHER, TERRI FAILS,JR., ROBERT FAILS, JR., ROBERT FAILS, JR., ROBERT FAILS, JR., ROBERT FAILS, JR., ROBERT PAYNE, ROBERT PAYNE,ROBERT

FORD MOTOR FORD MOTOR NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD MOTOR NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD MOTOR NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD MOTOR NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD MOTOR NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD MOTORS NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD MOTOR FORD MOTORS UNITED AUTO WORKERS

1

221-1999-00215 221-1999-00216 221-1999-00217 221-1999-00251 221-1999-00252 221-1999-00253 221-1999-00254 221-1999-00255 221-1999-00265 221-1999-00266 221-1999-00267 221-1999-00268 221-1999-00269 221-1999-00283 221-1999-00284 221-1999-00285 221-1999-00286 221-1999-00287

PAYNE,ROBERT PAYNE,ROBERT PAYNE,ROBERT HARRIS, JEROME HARRIS, JEROME HARRIS, JEROME HARRIS, JEROME HARRIS, JEROME GLOVER, JOHNATHAN GLOVER, JOHNATHAN GLOVER,JOHNATHAN GLOVER,JOHNATHAN GLOVER,JOHNATHAN HENDRICKS, JOSEPH HENDRICKS, JOSEPH HENDRICKS, JOSEPH HENDRICKS, JOSEPH HENDRICKS, JOSEPH

UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD-UAW APPR COMM NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD MOTOR NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 FORD MOTOR UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNITED AUTO WORKERS L 863 NATIONAL JOINT APPR COMM FORD-UAW APPR COMM FORD MOTOR

2

 
 Robinson v. Ford Motor Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 5253339 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.
James ROBINSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants. THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Plaintiff, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:04 CV 00844, 1:04 CV 00845. | June 15, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Nathaniel R. Jones, Blank, Rome LLP, Cincinnati, OH, Cyrus B. Mehri, Lisa Bornstein, Sandi Farrell, Mehri & Skalet, N.W., Washington, DC, C. Larry Watson, Jeffrey A. Stern, Lawrence Mays, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland District Office, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Virginia Ellen Morrison, Paul, Hasings, San Diego, CA, Barbara Berish Brown, Kenneth M. Willner, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Washington, DC, David Marvin Cook, Stephen A. Simon, Cincinnati, OH, Connye Y. Harper, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.
Opinion
OPINION & ORDER
SPIEGEL, Senior J.
*1 This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Class Action Settlement (doc. 21). Also before the Court are four filed Objections to the proposed settlement (docs. 16, 17, 18, and 19) one of which was withdrawn (doc. 20).
I. BACKGROUND
A. History of the Litigation

This is a class action, brought by a number of named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals against Ford Motor Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Ford”) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (hereinafter “UAW”). Ford and the UAW will be collectively referred to as the “Defendants” (doc. 1). The Plaintiffs, in their Complaint, sought declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages, based on Ford’s alleged continuing deprivation of rights accorded to themselves and members of a class of African–American Employees under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (hereinafter “Section 1981”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Michigan Elliott–Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976, MCLA § 37.2101 et seq. (Id.).
Plaintiffs complained that Ford’s testing process, the Apprenticeship Training Selection System (“ATSS”) and the selection procedures used in this test, which were used to select and place individuals on Ford’s apprenticeship eligibility list, denied unfairly African–Americans equal opportunity to participate in said apprenticeship program (Id.). In addition, related charges were before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed by the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members (doc. 21). The Defendants deny liability and deny that they discriminated against class members in the apprenticeship selection (Id.).
The Court praises the Parties for their efforts in bringing this litigation to quick resolution and notes that immediately following the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Provisional Class Certification (doc. 2). The Court, so as to provide all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement and to provide the Court with a more thorough understanding of the proposed settlement, set the matter for a Fairness Hearing (doc. 5). On February 9, 2005, the Court Granted the Parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Provisional Certification of Class (doc. 11). The Class provisionally approved by the Court’s Order was defined as follows:
All current and former Ford employees of African descent who
1

Robinson v. Ford Motor Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

took the Apprentice Training Selection System (ATSS) test for placement as an apprentice at any Ford facility at any time from January 1, 1997 to the date of Preliminary Approval and were not placed on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list during the Relevant Time Period. The settlement class does not include current and former Ford employees who took the ATSS for placement as an apprentice at any facility that is now, or was at the time the test was taken, a Visteon facility.
*2 (Id.). The Fairness Hearing was held June 1, 2005.
B. The Proposed Settlement Agreement The proposed Settlement Agreement resolves all claims raised by the Plaintiffs and the EEOC in this case and is summarized as follows:
1. Ford will immediately cease the use of the current selection procedure for choosing apprentices at Ford facilities in the U.S. (except as set forth in specific sections of the Settlement Agreement);
2. The parties will agree upon an industrial psychologist to serve as an expert to devise new apprenticeship selection procedures;
3. Ford will select 279 members of the Settlement Class and place them on the Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list. This aspect of the Settlement Agreement is designed to remedy claims for lost job opportunities;
4. To remedy monetary claims for the class, the Settlement Agreement also provides $2400 to Settlement Class Members who submit a properly executed claim and release pursuant to Section X of the Settlement Agreement, and who do not opt out; and
5. Finally, the Settlement Agreement provides for incentive payments to the Named Plaintiffs and the Charging Parties, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses agreed to by Ford.

At the Fairness Hearing held before this Court on June 1, 2005 regarding the Parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement (doc. 22) as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (doc. 23), the Court heard from Counsel for all Parties. As of the June 1, 2005 hearing, there were 3424 members of the class. A number of the Named Plaintiffs were present at the hearing. The Court placed all Objections on the record, either by reading filed Objections in open Court or by allowing those present to state their Objections in open Court. The Court then permitted Counsel for all Parties to respond to the Objections. The Court asked various probing questions concerning the Proposed Settlement to which it received well-reasoned and thorough answers. As such, the Court has been adequately briefed on the fairness of this settlement and is prepared to rule on the Parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement (doc. 22).
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Class Action Settlement Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). The Court must consider the factors of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy under Rule 23(a) and determine that the Class should be certified.
First, the individuals in the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. As noted above, the members of the class exceed 3400. Second, there are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any questions affecting only
2

Robinson v. Ford Motor Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

individuals. These common questions of law and fact are listed in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint (doc. 1) so the Court will not recount them here. Lastly, the claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the entire Class. As such, the Court finds the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met. The Court’s task now is to determine whether settlement of this class action pursuant to Rule 23 is appropriate at this time. The first issue before the Court is to decide whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
1. Legal standard *3 According to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, court approval is required to settle a class action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).
A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such a manner as the court directs.
Id. The law generally favors the settlement of complex class actions. Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 246 (S.D.Ohio 1991); see also 2 Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 11.41 (3d ed.1992).
There are three steps which must be taken by the court in order to approve a settlement: (1) the court must preliminarily approve the proposed settlement, (2) members of the class must be given notice of the proposed settlement, and (3) after holding a hearing, the court must give its final approval of the settlement. Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 921 (6th Cir.1983); Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 245; In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litigation, 130 F.R.D. 366, 369 (S.D.Ohio 1990).
Although Rule 23(e) is silent as to the standard courts should apply to approve or disapprove a proposed settlement, Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1208 (5th Cir.1982), the standard developed by the courts is to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under the circumstances, and whether the interests of the class as a whole are better served if the litigation is resolved by the settlement rather

than pursued. Bailey v. Great Lakes Canning, Inc., 908 F.2d 38, 42 (6th Cir.1990); In re Rio Hair Naturalizer Prod. Litig., No. MDL 1055, 1996 WL 780512, at *11 (E.D.Mich. Dec.20, 1996) (citing Manual for Complex Litigation, § 30.42 (3d ed.1995)). The court cannot modify the proposed settlement, but must approve or disapprove the proposed settlement “as a whole” in relations to all of those concerned. See Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 727, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747 (1986); Walsh v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 726 F.2d 956, 965 (3d Cir.1983); In re Rio Hair Naturalizer Prod. Litig., supra, at *11 (“The touchstone for final approval is the effect on the class as a whole in light of the particular circumstances ...”).
The district court bases its preliminary approval of a proposed settlement upon its familiarity with the issues and evidence of the case as well as the arms-length nature of the negotiations prior to the settlement. In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 369. The Court should also determine that the settlement is neither illegal nor collusive. Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 921; In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 369. With such preliminary approval, the settlement is presumptively reasonable, and an individual who objects has a heavy burden of proving the settlement is unreasonable. Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 921 (citing Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dep’t, 679 F.2d 541, 551, (6th Cir.1982), rev. on other grounds, 467 U.S. 561, 104 S.Ct. 2576, 81 L.Ed.2d 483 (1984)); Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 246.
*4 Being a preferred means of dispute resolution, there is a strong presumption by courts in favor of settlement. In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205, 211 (S.D.Ohio 1997); see also In re Rio Hair Naturalizer Prod. Litig., supra, at *11; Parker, 667 F.2d at 1209; Manual for Complex Litigation, § 30.42 (3d ed.1995). Consequently, those objecting to the proposed settlement have a heavy burden of proving the unreasonableness of the settlement. In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. at 211.
Notice of the proposed settlement should be given to all those affected by it. Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 921; In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 370. All parties should be given the opportunity to consider the settlement and respond to it. Id.
The district court may give its final approval of a class action settlement if it determines that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable, as well as consistent with the public interest.” Bailey v. Great Lakes Canning, Inc., 908 F.2d 38, 42 (6th Cir.1990); see also Vukovich, 720
3

Robinson v. Ford Motor Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

F.2d at 921; Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 245; In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 369. This is determined by examining the settlement “in its entirety and not as isolated components.” Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 245. The Court is not “to determine the merits of the controversy or the factual underpinning of the legal authorities advanced by the parties.” Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 921.
When determining whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, the court takes into account several factors:
(1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of ultimate success on the merits balanced against the amount and form of relief offered in settlement;
(2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation;
(3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed;
(4) the judgment of experienced trial counsel;
(5) the nature of the negotiations;
(6) the objections raised by the class members; and,
(7) the public interest.
In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 371 (citing Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 922); Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 245; Thompson v. Midwest Foundation Independent Physicians Association, 124 F.R.D. 154, 157 (S.D.Ohio 1988).
With these rules in mind, the Court now turns to an examination of the proposed settlement. The Court has previously made a preliminary approval of the settlement (doc. 11). In addition, the Court notes that the notice sent to the class regarding settlement of this matter was reasonable. Therefore, the Court will now proceed with an analysis of the factors involved in a determination of whether this proposed settlement is proper.
1. The Plaintiffs’ Likelihood of Ultimate Success on the Merits Balanced Against the Amount and Form of Relief Offered in Settlement Although Defendants, in their answers to the Complaint denied liability, the Parties did quickly work to negotiate

a detailed settlement. Given this quick negotiation of settlement, it could be argued that Plaintiffs’ claims were likely to have succeeded. However, just because a Party decides to settle should not be viewed as an admission of liability. Additionally, there are dangers and uncertainty inherent in any litigation. It is quite possible that the Plaintiffs would not have ultimately recovered an amount equal to the settlement amount. Furthermore, proceedings would have necessitated an individual determination of damages as to each individual Plaintiff. This would have been a long and tedious process. Certainly some Plaintiffs would have received more or less than the amount in the proposed settlement. In addition, Defendants have offered something that Plaintiffs may not have obtained by a judgment of this Court—that being the immediate cessation of the current selection procedure for choosing apprentices at Ford facilities in the United States. Therefore, when balanced against one another, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits is outweighed by the relief that Defendants have made available in this settlement agreement resulting in a settlement that is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
2. The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of the Litigation *5 This case involves complex legal issues that for both sides to have adequately litigated would have required large expenditures. Undoubtedly, the litigation would be arduous. To delay this matter further, would not substantially benefit the class members. Therefore, the Court concludes that this factor weighs in favor of the proposed settlement.
3. Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery Completed Prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Parties had been involved in extensive investigation into the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims and extensive settlement negotiations. This process advised the Parties of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. This indicates that the Parties reached a settlement after full evaluation of the strength of their cases. The Court believes that this factor weighs in favor of a determination that this settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.
4. The Judgment of Experienced Trial Counsel
4

Robinson v. Ford Motor Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

The Plaintiffs’ Class is represented by a number of experienced trial counsel including: Cyrus Mehri, Lisa Bornstein, and Sandi Farrell of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC; Nathaniel R. Jones and Patricia Davidson of Blank Rome, LLP; Armand Derfner of Derfner Altman & Wilborn LLC; Suzette Peyton of the Law Offices of Tom Nebel, P.C.; and Rhonda Maxwell of the Law Office of Rhonda M. Maxwell. The combined years of experience of these attorneys is substantial. Additionally, counsel for Ford, Kenneth M. Willner and Barbara Berish Brown of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP and counsel for UAW, Connye Y. Harper of the Office of General Counsel of the UAW, are experienced and talented attorneys. Lastly, a number of Counsel were involved in this matter representing the EEOC. The Court further finds the recommendation made by counsel for all Parties to approve the settlement is well informed. Accordingly, the Court recognizes the recommendation of all involved counsel and holds that this factor leans in favor of approval of the proposed settlement.
5. The Nature of the Negotiations The Court notes that this settlement was reached as the result of significant and substantial arms-length negotiations. The Parties negotiated extensively for over one year. The negotiations did not reflect or suggest any collusion or illegality. Therefore, the Court determines that the nature of the settlement negotiations, as observed by the Court, lends toward a determination that the agreed proposed settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable.
6. Objections Raised by the Class Members The fact that some class members object to the Settlement does not by itself prevent the Court from approving the agreement. Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 246 (citing Thompson, 124 F.R.D. at 159). In considering the extent and significance of the objections, “the Court must view the agreement in its entirety, rather than isolating individual components of the agreement for analysis.” Bronson v. Bd. of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Cincinnati, 604 F.Supp. 68, 78 (S.D.Ohio 1984) (quoting

Liddell v. Bd. of Educ. of City of St. Louis, 567 F.Supp. 1037 (E.D.Mo.1983)). Also, a relatively small number of class members who object is an indication of a settlement’s fairness. Newberg on Class Actions, supra, at § 11.48.
*6 In this case, there were only four filed Objections (doc. 16, 17, 18, and 19) one of which was withdrawn (doc. 20). Only one individual objected in open court and his concerns, although potentially disturbing, did not relate to the matters of this case. In addition, the Court notes that when given an opportunity to object to this settlement, only four of over 3400 did so. This represents less then 0.25 percent of the entire class.
7. The Public Interest Finally, the Court finds that the public interest is served by this Settlement. The Settlement is beneficial to the members of the Settlement Class. The Settlement provides substantial monetary and non-monetary benefits to the class in a timely manner, as well as extensive systemic relief. The new testing procedures will benefit not only the Class Members, but potentially also all employees and future employees of Ford.
III. CONCLUSION The Court has carefully reviewed all aspects of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, as well as the above noted Objections. Viewing the Proposed Settlement Agreement in its entirety, the Court finds that the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion to Approve the Class Action Settlement (doc. 21). Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (doc. 22) will be decided by a separate Order of this Court.
SO ORDERED.
	  

5

 
 Case: 1:04-cv-845 As of: 05/25/2017 01:42 PM EDT 1 of 4
CLOSED,CONSOL
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04−cv−00845−SAS

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Company et al Assigned to: Judge S Arthur Spiegel Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/27/2004 Date Terminated: 06/17/2005 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by C Larry Watson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission AJC Federal Office Building Suite 3001 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199 216−522−7455 Fax: FAX−522−7430 Email: larry.watson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey A Stern Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland District Office Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Office Building 1240 East 9th Street Suite 3001 Cleveland, OH 44199 216−522−7458 Fax: 216−522−7430 Email: jeffrey.stern@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence Mays Equal Employment Opportunity Commission AJC Federal Office Building Suite 3001 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199 216−522−4796 Fax: 216−522−7430 Email: Lawrence.Mays@EEOC.GOV LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Ford Motor Company

represented by Virginia Ellen Morrison Paul Hasings 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 858−720−2500 Email: virginiamorrison@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:04-cv-845 As of: 05/25/2017 01:42 PM EDT 2 of 4

Defendant United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America
Defendant United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, Local 863
Defendant National Ford−UAW Joint Apprenticeship Committee Defendant Local Ford−UAW Joint Apprenticeship Committee

represented by David M. Cook Cook & Logothetis, LLC 30 Garfield Place, Suite 540 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−287−6980 Fax: 513−721−1178 Email: dcook@econjustice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A Simon Tobias, Kraus & Torchia 414 Walnut St., Ste. 911 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 241−8137 Fax: (513) 241−7863 Email: steves@tktlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connye Y Harper International Union UAW 8000 East Jefferson Detroit, MI 48214 313−926−5216 Fax: 313−926−5240 Email: charper@uaw.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A Simon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connye Y Harper (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/27/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Local Ford−UAW Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Ford Motor Company, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, Local 863, National Ford−UAW Joint Apprenticeship Committee (Filing fee $ 150.) , filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 48BE (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 receipt)(mlc, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:04-cv-845 As of: 05/25/2017 01:42 PM EDT 3 of 4

12/27/2004 12/27/2004 12/30/2004 01/05/2005 01/06/2005
01/07/2005
01/12/2005 01/12/2005 01/12/2005 01/12/2005 01/19/2005
01/25/2005 01/26/2005 01/28/2005 02/02/2005

12/29/2004)
Filing fee: $ 150, receipt number 425129 (mlc, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)
2 JOINT MOTION for preliminary approval of settlement agreement and Provisional Class Certification by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 1/20/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2−6# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(mlc, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)
3 MOTION for Leave to Appear Additional Trial Attorney Pro Hac Vice by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
4 ORDER granting 2 Motion to Provisionally Certify Class, granting 2 Motion for Order to Preliminary approve of settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 1/5/05. (ss, ) (Entered: 01/05/2005)
5 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case transferred to Judge S Arthur Spiegel for all further proceedings. Judge Susan J. Dlott no longer assigned to case. This case is further CONSOLIDATED with related lead action 1:04−cv−00844. See 1:04−cv−00844 for all further docket entries. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel and Judge Susan J. Dlott on 1/6/2005. (km, ) Modified on 1/6/2005 (km, ). (Entered: 01/06/2005)
6 ORDER In light of the transfer and consolidation of this action, the Court hereby VACATES the Court?s previous Order 4 . The Court will issue a new Order on the pending Joint Motion for Provisional Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement 2 , with a new date for a Fairness Hearing, subsequent to the Status Conference set for 2/9/2005 at 2:00 pm in lead case 1:04−cv−00844. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/6/2005. (km, ) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
7 NOTATION ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Jeffrey A. Stern. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/12/2005. (km, ) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by David Marvin Cook Defendants United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, Local 863 (Cook, David) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America waiver sent on 12/30/2004, answer due 2/28/2005. (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, Local 863 waiver sent on 12/30/2004, answer due 2/28/2005. (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
11 MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice for attorney Connye F. Harper by Defendants United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, Local 863. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Connye F. Harper# 2 Exhibit certificate of good standing# 3 receipt for filing fee)(wam, ) (Entered: 01/20/2005)
12 NOTATION ORDER granting 11 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Connye F. Harper. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/25/2005. (km, ) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
13 Summons Issued as to Local Ford−UAW Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Ford Motor Company, National Ford−UAW Joint Apprenticeship Committee. (wam, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
14 MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice for attorney Barbara B. Brown by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit certificate of good standing# 2 receipt for filing fee)(wam, ) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
15 NOTATION ORDER granting 14 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Barbara B. Brown. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 2/1/2005. (km, ) (Entered: 02/02/2005)

Case: 1:04-cv-845 As of: 05/25/2017 01:42 PM EDT 4 of 4

02/07/2005
06/15/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 08/02/2007 08/02/2007 09/04/2007

16 ANSWER to Complaint by Defendants United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculatural Implement Workers of America, Local 863.(Cook, David) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
17 ORDER granting Joint Motion to Approve the Class Action Settlement ( 21 in Lead Case 1:04−cv−00844). Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 6/15/2005. (km, ) Modified on 6/17/2005 (km, ). (Entered: 06/17/2005)
18 ORDER granting Motion for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses ( 23 in lead case 1:04−cv−00844). Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 6/16/2005. (km, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
19 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered affirming Court Orders entered in lead case 1:04−cv−844 28 29 . (km, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
20 NOTICE of Hearing:Status Conference set for 9/4/2007 03:00 PM in chambers before Judge S Arthur Spiegel. (km1, ) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
21 ORDER setting Status Conference re Settlement Agreement for 9/4/2007 03:00 PM. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/1/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter of Mr. Kevin Marshall) (km1, ) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
22 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference RESET for 9/11/2007 02:00 PM in chambers before Judge S Arthur Spiegel. (km1, ) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

 
 EEOC, Ford, UAW, Class Members Voice Approval of Landmark Race...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-1-05.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 1, 2005

CONTACT: CONTACT: C. LARRY WATSON Cleveland Regional Attorney (216) 522-7455 LAWRENCE MAYS Supervisory Trial Attorney (216) 522-4796 JEFFREY A. STERN Senior Trial Attorney (216) 522-7458
TTY: (216) 522-8441

EEOC, FORD, UAW, CLASS MEMBERS VOICE APPROVAL OF LANDMARK RACE DISCRIMINATION SETTLEMENT
Ford to Pay African American Employees $8.55 Million, Provide 280 Apprenticeships, and Revamp Selection Method for Skilled Trade Apprenticeship Program
CINCINNATI - During a Fairness Hearing today in federal district court, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Ford Motor Company, the United Auto Workers (UAW), and private plaintiffs' attorneys reiterated their approval of and commitment to sweeping changes mandated by the settlement of a class action race discrimination case against Ford on behalf of thousands of African American employees nationwide.
The settlement, which is pending final approval, will resolve litigation against Ford and the UAW by the EEOC and private plaintiffs on behalf of a class of African American hourly employees at Ford who were denied skilled trades apprenticeships based on a written application test that had a disparate impact on them. Judge Arthur Spiegel of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, preliminarily approved the comprehensive settlement in February 2005.
The settlement will apply to all Ford facilities nationwide and provide significant advancement opportunities for African American employees to apprentice for skilled craft positions, such as electrician, pipefitter, machine repair and other jobs. Monetary relief will include approximately $8.55 million for 13 African American Ford employees who filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC offices in Cincinnati and Cleveland, as well as a class of about 3,400 African Americans nationwide who have taken the test since January 1, 1997, and were not placed on the Ford apprentice list. Non-monetary relief will include placing 280 African American test takers on apprentice lists and developing new selection methods for Ford's apprenticeship program by a jointly selected expert with detailed reporting and monitoring provisions.
"The EEOC is pleased to have been able to work cooperatively with Ford and the United Auto Workers in reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution to this matter," said Commission General Counsel Eric Dreiband. "Employers must consider how all aspects of selection processes, including written tests, may adversely impact members of a particular demographic group."
Upon final approval, the settlement will resolve the EEOC's lawsuit against Ford, the National United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), the UAW's Local 863, and both the local and national Ford-UAW Joint Apprenticeship Committee. The EEOC's suit was filed on December 27, 2004. The settlement will also resolve the class members' suit against Ford and the UAW, for which they are represented by private counsel (Robinson v. Ford Motor Company). The text of the settlement agreement is available online at http://www.findjustice.com/ms/practice/civil/Ford/index.htm
The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for enforcing the nation's anti- discrimination laws in the workplace based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, retaliation, age and disability. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on June 1, 2005.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

6/18/2007 1:13 PM

 
  EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. and United Automobile Workers of America No. 1:04-CV-00845 (S.D. Ohio June 16, 2005)
In this nationwide Title VII action, the Cleveland District Office alleged that defendants used a written test for skilled trades apprentice positions (electrical, millwright, plumber-pipefitter, machine repair, and tool and die) that had a disparate impact on African-American applicants. The case was consolidated with a private class action filed in conjunction with EEOC's suit, and was resolved through a settlement agreement approved by the court through a consent order entered following a fairness hearing. The class consists of current and former Ford employees of African descent who took the Apprentice Training Selection System test between January 1, 1997, and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement (Feb. 9, 2005), and were not placed on a Ford apprenticeship eligibility list. Ford ceased using the test in August 2004.
The settlement, which was reached during conciliation of 13 charges, provides that an industrial organizational psychologist selected by the parties will design and validate an apprenticeship selection instrument(s) consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and professional standards within the field of industrial organizational psychology. If after reviewing the expert's validation report any party believes the proposed selection instrument(s) does not comply with applicable law or professional standards, the parties will attempt to resolve the dispute through a procedure established in the settlement agreement, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if voluntary resolution efforts fail.
The settlement also provides that Ford will select 280 class members for apprentice positions: 50% within 6 months of final approval of the settlement; an additional 25% no later than 6 months thereafter; and the final 25% no later than 12 months thereafter. The 13 charging parties will receive $30,000 each in monetary relief, and approximately 3,400 additional class members will receive $2,400 each, for a total recovery to the class of approximately $8.55 million. In addition, counsel for the private class will receive $1.1 million in fees and expenses for work through final approval of the settlement and $567,000 in fees and expenses for work to be performed in implementing and monitoring the settlement.